Ancient History

GASTON MASPERO

The Dawn of Civilisation

Gaston Camille Charles Maspero, born on June 23, 1846, in
Paris, is one of the most renowned of European experts in philology and
Egyptology, having in great part studied his special subjects on Oriental
ground. After occupying for several years the Chair of Egyptology in the
École des Hautes Études at the Sorbonne in Paris, he became,
in 1874, Professor of Egyptian Philology and Archæology at the
Collège de France. From 1881 to 1886 he acted in Egypt as director
of the Boulak Museum. It was under his superintendence that this museum
became enriched with its choicest antique treasures. Dr. Maspero retired in
1886, but in 1899 again went to Egypt as Director of Excavations. His works
are of the utmost value, his skill in marshalling facts and deducting
legitimate inferences being unrivalled. His masterpiece is an immense work,
with the general title of "History of the Ancient Peoples of the Classic
East," divided into three parts, each complete in itself: (1) "The Dawn of
Civilisation"; (2) "The Struggle of the Nations"; (3) "The Passing of the
Empires."

I.--The Nile and Egypt

A long, low, level shore, scarcely rising above the sea, a chain of
vaguely defined and ever-shifting lakes and marshes, then the triangular
plain beyond, whose apex is thrust thirty leagues into the land--this, the
Delta of Egypt, has gradually been acquired from the sea, and is, as it
were, the gift of the Nile. Where the Delta ends, Egypt proper begins. It
is only a strip of vegetable mould stretching north and south between
regions of drought and desolation, a prolonged oasis on the banks of the
river, made by the Nile, and sustained by the Nile. The whole length of the
land is shut in by two ranges of hills, roughly parallel at a mean distance
of about twelve miles.
During the earlier ages the river filled all this intermediate space;
and the sides of the hills, polished, worn, blackened to their very
summits, still bear unmistakable traces of its action. Wasted and shrunken
within the deeps of its own ancient bed, the stream now makes a way through
its own thick deposits of mud. The bulk of its waters keep to the east, and
constitutes the true Nile, the "Great River" of the hieroglyphic
inscriptions. At Khartoum the single channel in which the river flowed
divides, and two other streams are opened up in a southerly direction, each
of them apparently equal in volume to the main stream.
Which is the true Nile? Is it the Blue Nile, which seems to come down
from the distant mountains? Or is it the White Nile, which has traversed
the immense plains of equatorial Africa? The old Egyptians never knew. The
river kept the secret of its source from them as obstinately as it withheld
it from us until a few years ago. Vainly did their victorious armies follow
the Nile for months together, as they pursued the tribes who dwelt upon its
banks, only to find it as wide, as full, as irresistible in its progress as
ever. It was a fresh-water sea--iauma, ioma was the name by which
they called it. The Egyptians, therefore, never sought its source. It was
said to be of supernatural origin, to rise in Paradise, to traverse burning
regions inaccessible to man, and afterwards to fall into a sea whence it
made its way to Egypt.
The sea mentioned in all the tales is, perhaps, a less extravagant
invention than we are at first inclined to think. A lake, nearly as large
as the Victoria Nyanza, once covered the marshy plain where the
Bahr-el-Abiad unites with the Sobat and with the Bahr-el-Ghazal. Alluvial
deposits have filled up all but its deepest depression, which is known as
Birket Nu; but in ages preceding our era it must still have been vast
enough to suggest to Egyptian soldiers and boatmen the idea of an actual
sea opening into the Indian Ocean.
Everything is dependent upon the river--the soil, the produce of the
soil, the species of animals it bears, the birds which it feeds--and hence
it was the Egyptians placed the river among their gods. They personified it
as a man with regular features, and a vigorous but portly body, such as
befits the rich of high lineage. Sometimes water springs from his breast;
sometimes he presents a frog, or libation of vases, or bears a tray full of
offerings of flowers, corn, fish, or geese. The inscriptions call him
"Hapi, father of the gods, lord of sustenance, who maketh food to be, and
covereth the two lands of Egypt with his products; who giveth life,
banisheth want, and filleth the granaries to overflowing."
He is evolved into two personages, one being sometimes coloured red, the
other blue. The former, who wears a cluster of lotus-flowers on his head,
presides over Egypt of the south; the latter has a bunch of papyrus for his
headdress, and watches over the Delta. Two goddesses, corresponding to the
two Hapis--Mirit Qimait for the Upper, and Mirit-Mihit for the Lower
Egypt--personified the banks of the river. They are represented with
outstretched arms, as though begging for the water that should make them
fertile.

II.--The Gods of Egypt

The incredible number of religious scenes to be found represented on the
ancient monuments of Egypt is at first glance very striking. Nearly every
illustration in the works of Egyptologists shows us the figure of some
deity. One would think the country had been inhabited for the most part by
gods, with just enough men and animals to satisfy the requirements of their
worship. Each of these deities represented a function, a moment in the life
of man or of the universe. Thus, Naprit was identified with the ripe ear of
wheat; Maskhonit appeared by the child's cradle at the very moment of its
birth; and Raninit presided over the naming and nurture of the newly
born.
In penetrating this mysterious world we are confronted by an actual
jumble of gods, many being of foreign origin; and these, with the
indigenous deities, made up nations of gods. This mixed pantheon had its
grades of noble princes and kings, each of its members representing one of
the forces constituting the world. Some appeared in human form; others as
animals; others as combinations of human and animal forms.
The sky-gods, like the earth-gods, were separated into groups, the one
composed of women: Hathor of Denderah, or Nit of Sais; the other composed
of men identical with Horus, or derived from him: Anhuri-Shu of Sebennytos
and Thinis; Harmerati, or Horus, of the two eyes, at Pharbæthos;
Har-Sapedi, or Horus, of the zodiacal light, in the Wady Tumilat; and,
finally, Harhuditi at Edfu. Ra, the solar disc, was enthroned at
Heliopolis; and sun-gods were numerous among the home deities. Horus the
sun, and Ra the sun-god of Heliopolis, so permeated each other that none
could say where the one began and the other ended.
Each of the feudal gods representing the sun cherished pretensions to
universal dominion. The goddesses shared in supreme power. Isis was
entitled lady and mistress of Buto, as Hathor was at Denderah, and as Nit
was at Sais. The animal-gods shared omnipotence with those in human form.
Each of the feudal divinities appropriated two companions and formed a
trinity; or, as it is generally called, a triad. Often the local deity was
content with one wife and one son, but often he was united to two
goddesses. The system of triads enhanced, rather than lowered, the prestige
of the feudal gods. The son in a divine triad had of himself but limited
authority. When Isis and Osiris were his parents, he was generally an
infant Horus, whose mother nursed him, offering him her breast. The gods
had body and soul, like men; they had bones, muscles, flesh and blood; they
hungered and thirsted, ate and drank; they had our passions, griefs, joys
and infirmities; and they were subject to age, decrepitude and death,
though they lived very far beyond the term of life of men.
The sa, a mysterious fluid, circulated through their members, and
carried with it divine vigour; and this they could impart to men, who thus
might become gods. Many of the Pharaohs became deities. The king who wished
to become impregnated with the divine sa sat before the statue of
the god in order that this principle might be infused into him. The gods
were spared none of the anguish and none of the perils which death so
plentifully bestows on men. The gods died; each nome possessed the mummy
and the tomb of its dead deity. At Thinis there was the mummy of Anhuri in
its tomb, at Mendes the mummy of Osiris, at Heliopolis that of Tumu.
Usually, by dying, the god became another deity. Ptah of Memphis became
Sokaris; Uapuaitu, the jackal of Siut, was changed into Anubis. Osiris
first represented the wild and fickle Nile of primitive times; but was soon
transformed into a benefactor to humanity, the supremely good being,
Unnofriu, Onnophris. He was supposed to assume the shapes not only of man,
but of rams and bulls, or even of water-birds, such as lapwings, herons,
and cranes. His companion goddess was Isis, the cow, or woman with cow's
horns, who personified the earth, and was mother of Horus.
There were countless gods of the people: trees, serpents and family
fetishes. Fine single sycamores, flourishing as if by miracle amid the
sand, were counted divine, and worshipped by Egyptians of all ranks, who
made them offerings of figs, grapes, cucumbers, vegetables and water. The
most famous of them all, the Sycamore of the South, used to be regarded as
the living body of Hathor on earth. Each family possessed gods and
fetishes, which had been pointed out by some fortuitous meeting with an
animal or an object; perhaps by a dream and often by sudden intuition.

III.--Legendary History of Egypt

The legendary history of Egypt begins with the Heliopolitan Enneads, or
traditions of the divine dynasties of Ra, Shu, Osiris, Sit and Horus. Great
space is taken up with the fabulous history of Ra, the first king of Egypt,
who allows himself to be duped and robbed by Isis, destroys rebellious men,
and ascends to heaven. He dwelt in Heliopolis, where his court was mainly
composed of gods and goddesses. In the morning he went forth in his barque,
amid the acclamations of the crowd, made his accustomed circuit of the
world, and returned to his home at the end of twelve hours after the
journey. In his old age he became the subject of the wiles of Isis, who
poisoned him, and so secured his departure from earth. He was succeeded by
Shu and Sibu, between whom the empire of the universe was divided.
The fantastic legends concocted by the priests go on to relate how at
length Egypt was civilised by Osiris and Isis. By Osiris the people were
taught agriculture; Isis weaned them from cannibalism. Osiris was slain by
the red-haired and jealous demon, Sit-Typhon, and then Egypt was divided
between Horus and Sit as rivals; and so it consisted henceforth of two
kingdoms, of which one, that of the north, duly recognised Horus, son of
Isis, as its patron deity; the other, that of the south, placed itself
under the supreme protection of Sit-Nubiti, the god of Ombos.
Elaborate and intricate and hopelessly confused are the fables relating
to the Osirian embalmment, and to the opening of the kingdom of Osiris to
the followers of Horus. Souls did not enter it without examination and
trial, as it is the aim of the famous Book of the Dead to show. Before
gaining access to this paradise each of them had to prove that it had
during earthly life belonged to a friend or to a vassal of Osiris, and had
served Horus in his exile, and had rallied to his banner from the very
beginning of the Typhonian wars.
To Menes of Thinis tradition ascribes the honour of fusing the two
Egypts into one empire, and of inaugurating the reign of the human
dynasties. But all we know of this first of the Pharaohs, beyond his
existence, is practically nothing, and the stories related of him are mere
legends. The real history of the early centuries eludes our researches. The
history as we have it is divided into three periods: 1. The Memphite
period, which is usually called the "Ancient Empire," from the First to the
Tenth dynasty: kings of Memphite origin were rulers over the whole of Egypt
during the greater part of this epoch. 2. The Theban period, from the
Eleventh to the Twentieth dynasty. It is divided into two parts by the
invasion of the Shepherds (Sixteenth dynasty). 3. Saite period, from the
Twenty-first to the Thirtieth dynasty, divided again into two parts by the
Persian Conquest, the first Saite period, from the Twenty-first to the
Twenty-sixth dynasty; the second Saite Period, from the Twenty-eighth to
the Thirtieth dynasty.

IV.--Political Constitution of Egypt

Between the Fayum and the apex of the Delta, the Libyan range expands
and forms a vast and slightly undulating table-land, which runs parallel to
the Nile for nearly thirty leagues. The great Sphinx Harmakhis has mounted
guard over its northern extremity ever since the time of the followers of
Horus. In later times, a chapel of alabaster and rose granite was erected
alongside the god; temples were built here and there in the more accessible
places, and round these were grouped the tombs of the whole country. The
bodies of the common people, usually naked and uncoffined, were thrust into
the sand at a depth of barely three feet from the surface. Those of the
better class rested in mean rectangular chambers, hastily built of yellow
bricks, without ornaments or treasures; a few vessels, however, of coarse
pottery contained the provisions left to nourish the departed during the
period of his existence. Some of the wealthy class had their tombs cut out
of the mountain-side; but the great majority preferred an isolated tomb, a
"mastaba," comprised of a chapel above ground, a shaft, and some
subterranean vaults.
During the course of centuries, the ever-increasing number of tombs
formed an almost uninterrupted chain, are rich in inscriptions, statues,
and in painted or sculptured scenes, and from the womb, as it were, of
these cemeteries, the Egypt of the Memphite dynasties gradually takes new
life and reappears in the full daylight of history. The king stands out
boldly in the foreground, and his tall figure towers over all else. He is
god to his subjects, who call him "the good-god," and "the great-god,"
connecting him with Ra through the intervening kings. So the Pharaohs are
blood relations of the sun-god, the "divine double" being infused into the
royal infant at birth.
The monuments throw full light on the supernatural character of the
Pharaohs in general, but tell us little of the individual disposition of
any king in particular, or of their everyday life. The royal family was
very numerous. At least one of the many women of the harem received the
title of "great spouse," or queen. Her union with the god-king rendered her
a goddess. Children swarmed in the palace, as in the houses of private
citizens, and they were constantly jealous of each other, having no bond of
union except common hatred of the son whom the chances of birth had
destined to be their ruler.
Highly complex degrees of rank are revealed to us on the monuments of
the people who immediately surrounded the Pharaoh. His person was, as it
were, minutely subdivided into compartments, each requiring its attendants
and their appointed chiefs. His toilet alone gave employment to a score of
different trades. The guardianship of the crowns almost approached the
dignity of a priesthood, for was not the urseus, which adorned each one, a
living goddess? Troops of musicians, singers, dancers, buffoons and dwarfs
whiled away the tedious hours. Many were the physicians, chaplains,
soothsayers and magicians. But vast indeed was the army of officials
connected with the administration of public affairs. The mainspring of all
this machinery was the writer, or, as we call him, the scribe, across whom
we come in all grades of the staff.
The title of scribe was of no particular value in itself, for everyone
was a scribe who knew how to read and write, was fairly proficient in
wording the administrative formulas, and could easily apply the elementary
rules of book-keeping. "One has only to be a scribe, for the scribe takes
the lead of all," said the wise man. Sometimes, however, a talented scribe
rose to a high position, like the Amten, whose tomb was removed to Berlin
by Lepsius, and who became a favourite of the king and was ennobled.

V.--The Memphite Empire

At that time "the Majesty of King Huni died, and the Majesty of King
Snofrui arose to be a sovereign benefactor over this whole earth." All we
know of him is contained in one sentence: he fought against the nomads of
Sinai, constructed fortresses to protect the eastern frontier of the Delta,
and made for himself a tomb in the form of a pyramid. Snofrui called the
pyramid "Kha," the Rising, the place where the dead Pharaoh, identified
with the sun, is raised above the world for ever. It was built to indicate
the place in which lies a prince, chief, or person of rank in his tribe or
province. The worship of Snofrui, the first pyramid-builders, was
perpetuated from century to century. His popularity was probably great; but
his fame has been eclipsed in our eyes by that of the Pharaohs of the
Memphite dynasty who immediately followed him--Kheops, Khephren and
Mykerinos.
Khufui, the Kheops of the Greeks, was probably son of Snofrui. He
reigned twenty-three years, successfully defended the valuable mines of
copper, manganese and turquoise of the Sinaitic peninsula against the
Bedouin; restored the temple of Hathor at Dendera; embellished that of
Babastis; built a sanctuary to the Isis of the Sphinx; and consecrated
there gold, silver and bronze statues of Horus and many other gods. Other
Pharaohs had done as much or more; but the Egyptians of later dynasties
measured the magnificence of Kheops by the dimensions of his pyramid at
Ghizel. The Great Pyramid was called Khuit, the "Horizon," in which Kheops
had to be swallowed up, as his father, the sun, was engulfed every evening
in the horizon of the west. Of Dadufri, his immediate successor, we can
probably say that he reigned eight years; but Khephren, the next son who
succeeded to the throne, erected temples and a gigantic pyramid, like his
father. He placed it some 394 feet to the south-west of that of Kheops, and
called it Uiru the Great. It is much smaller than its neighbour, but at a
distance the difference in height disappears. The pyramid of Mykerinos, son
and successor of Khephren, was considerably inferior in height, but was
built with scrupulous art and refined care.
The Fifth dynasty manifested itself in every respect as the sequel and
complement of the Fourth. It reckons nine Pharaohs, who reigned for a
century and a half, and each of them built pyramids and founded cities, and
appear to have ruled gloriously. They maintained, and even increased, the
power and splendour of Egypt. But the history of the Memphite Empire
unfortunately loses itself in legend and fable, and becomes a blank for
several centuries.

VI.--The First Theban Empire

The principality of the Oleander--Naru--comprised the territory lying
between the Nile and the Bahr Yusuf, a district known to the Greeks as the
island of Heracleopolis. It, moreover, included the whole basin of the
Fayum, on the west of the valley. Attracted by the fertility of the soil,
the Pharaohs of the older dynasties had from time to time taken up their
residence in Heracleopolis, the capital of the district of the Oleander,
and one of them, Snofrui, had built his pyramid at Medum, close to the
frontier of the nome. In proportion as the power of the Memphites declined,
so did the princes of the Oleander grow more vigorous and enterprising; and
When the Memphite kings passed away, these princes succeeded their former
masters and eventually sat "upon the throne of Horus."
The founder of the Ninth dynasty was perhaps Khiti I., who ruled over
all Egypt, and whose name has been found on rocks at the first cataract.
His successors seem to have reigned ingloriously for more than a century.
The history of this period seems to have been one of confused struggle, the
Pharaohs fighting constantly against their vassals, and the nobles warring
amongst themselves. During the Memphite and Heracleopolitan dynasties
Memphis, Elephantiné, El-Kab and Koptos were the principal cities of
the country; and it was only towards the end of the Eighth dynasty that
Thebes began to realise its power. The revolt of the Theban. princes put an
end to the Ninth dynasty; and though supported by the feudal powers of
Central and Northern Egypt, the Tenth dynasty did not succeed in bringing
them back to their allegiance, and after a struggle of nearly 200 years the
Thebans triumphed and brought the two divisions of Egypt under their
rule.
The few glimpses to be obtained of the early history of the first Theban
dynasty give the impression of an energetic and intelligent race. The kings
of the Eleventh dynasty were careful not to wander too far from the valley
of the Nile, concentrating their efforts not on conquest of fresh
territory, but on the remedy of the evils from which the country had
suffered for hundreds of years. The final overthrow of the Heracleopolitan
dynasty, and the union of the two kingdoms under the rule of the Theban
house, are supposed to have been the work of that Monthotpu, whose name the
Egyptians of Rameside times inscribed in the royal lists as that of the
founder and most illustrious representative of the Eleventh dynasty.
The leader of the Twelfth dynasty, Amenemhait I., was of another stamp,
showing himself to be a Pharaoh conscious of his own divinity and
determined to assert it. He inspected the whole land, restored what he
found in ruins, crushed crime, settled the bounds of towns, and established
for each its frontiers. Recognising that Thebes lay too far south to be a
suitable place of residence for the lord of all Egypt, Amenemhait proceeded
to establish himself in the heart of the country in imitation of the
glorious Pharaohs from whom he claimed descent. He took up his abode a
little to the south of Dashur, in the palace of Titoui. Having restored
peace to his country, the king in the twentieth year of his reign, when he
was growing old, raised his son Usirtasen, then very young, to the
co-regency with himself.
When, ten years later, the old king died, his son was engaged in a war
against the Libyans. He reigned alone for thirty-two years. The Twelfth
dynasty lasted 213 years; and its history can be ascertained with greater
certainty and completeness than that of any other dynasty which ruled
Egypt, although we are far from having any adequate idea of its great
achievements, for unfortunately the biographies of its eight sovereigns and
the details of their interminable wars are very imperfectly known.
Uncertainty again shrouds the history of the country after the reign of
Sovkhoptu I. The Twentieth dynasty contained, so it is said, sixty kings,
who reigned for a period of over 453 years. The Nofirhoptus and Sovkhoptus
continued to all appearances both at home and abroad the work so ably begun
by the Amenemhaits and the Usirtasens.
During the Thirteenth dynasty art and everything else in Egypt were
fairly prosperous, but wealth exercised an injurious effect on artistic
taste. During this dynasty we hear nothing of the inhabitants of the
Sinaitic Peninsula to the east, or of the Libyans to the west; it was in
the south, in Ethiopia, that the Pharaohs expended all their superfluous
energy. The middle basin of the Nile as far as Gebel-Barkal was soon
incorporated with Egypt, and the population became quickly assimilated.
Sovkhoptu III., who erected colossal statues of himself at Tanis, Bubastis
and Thebes, was undisputed master of the whole Nile valley, from near the
spot where it receives its last tributary to where it empties itself into
the sea. The making of Egypt was finally accomplished in his time. The
Fourteenth dynasty, however, consists of a line of seventy-five kings,
whose mutilated names appear on the Turin Papyrus. These shadowy Pharaohs
followed each other in rapid sequence, some reigning only a few months,
others for certainly not more than two and three years.
Meantime, during what appears to have been an era of rivalries between
pretenders, mutually jealous of and deposing one another, usurpers in
succession seizing the crown without strength to keep it, the feudal lords
displayed more than their old restlessness. The nomad tribes began to show
growing hostility on the frontier, and the peoples of the Tigris and
Euphrates were already pushing their vanguards into Central Syria. While
Egypt had been bringing the valley of the Nile and the eastern corner of
Africa into subjection, Chaldæa had imposed not only language and
habits, but also her laws upon the whole of that part of Eastern Asia which
separated her from Egypt. Thus the time was rapidly approaching when these
two great civilised powers of the ancient world would meet each other face
to face and come into fierce and terrible collision.

VII.--Ancient Chaldæa

The Chaldæan account of Genesis is contained on fragments of
tablets discovered and deciphered in 1875 by George Smith. These tell
legends of the time when "nothing which was called heaven existed above,
and when nothing below had as yet received the name of earth. Apsu, the
Ocean, who was their first father, and Chaos-Tiamat, who gave birth to them
all, mingled their waters in one, reeds which were not united, rushes which
bore no fruit. In the time when the gods were not created, Lakhmu and
Lakhamu were the first to appear and waxed great for ages."
Then came Anu, the sunlit sky by day, the starlit firmament by night;
Inlil-Bel, the king of the earth; Ea, the sovereign of the waters and the
personification of wisdom. Each of them duplicated himself, Anu into Anat,
Bel into Belit, Ea into Damkina, and united himself to the spouse whom he
had produced from himself. Other divinities sprang from these fruitful
pairs, and, the impulse once given, the world was rapidly peopled by their
descendants. Sin, Samash and Ramman, who presided respectively over the
sun, moon and air, were all three of equal rank; next came the lords of the
planets, Ninib, Merodach, Nergal, Ishtar, the warrior-goddess, and Nebo;
then a whole army of lesser deities who ranged themselves around Anu as
around a supreme master.
Discord arose. The first great battle of the gods was between Tiamat and
Merodach. In this fearful conflict Tiamat was destroyed. Splitting her body
into halves, the conqueror hung up one on high, and this became the
heavens; the other he spread out under his feet to form the earth, and made
the universe as men have known it. Merodach regulated the movements of the
sun and divided the year into twelve months.
The heavens having been put in order, he set about peopling the earth.
Many such fables concerning the cosmogony were current among the races of
the lower Euphrates, who seem to have belonged to three different types.
The most important were the Semites, who spoke a dialect akin to Armenian,
Hebrew and Phoenician. Side by side with these the monuments give evidence
of a race of ill-defined character, whom we provisionally call Sumerians,
who came, it is said, from some northern country, and brought with them a
curious system of writing which, adopted by ten different nations, has
preserved for us all that we know in regard to the majority of the empires
which rose and fell in Western Asia before the Persian conquest. The cities
of these Semites and Sumerians were divided into two groups, one in the
south, near the sea, the other more to the north, where the Euphrates and
the Tigris are separated by a narrow strip of land. The southern group
consisted of seven, Eridu lying nearest the coast. Uru was the most
important. Lagash was to the north of Eridu. The northern group consisted
of Nipur, "the incomparable," Borsip, Babylon (gate of the god and
residence of life, the only metropolis of the Euphrates region of which
posterity never lost reminiscence), Kishu, Kuta, Agade, and, lastly, the
two Sipparas, that of Shamash, and that of Annuit.
The earliest Chaldæan civilisation was confined almost to the
banks of the lower Euphrates; except at the northern boundary it did not
reach the Tigris and did not cross the river. Separated from the rest of
the world, on the east by the vast marshes bordering on the river, on the
north by the Mesopotamian table-land, on the west by the Arabian desert, it
was able to develop its civilisation as Egypt had done, in an isolated
area, and to follow out its destiny in peace.
According to Ferossasi the first king was Aloros of Babylon. He was
chosen by the god Oannes, and reigned supernaturally for ten sari, or
36,000 years, each saros being 3,600 years. Nine kings follow, each in this
mythical record reigning an enormous period. Then took place the great
deluge, 691,000 years after the creation, in consequence of the wickedness
of men, who neglected the worship of the gods, and excited their wrath.
Shamashnapishtim, king at this time in Shurippak, was saved miraculously in
a great ship. Concerning him and his voyage strange fables are recorded.
After the deluge, 86 kings ruled during 34,080 years. One of these was
Nimrod, the mighty hunter of the Bible, who appears as Gilgamesh, King of
Uruk, and is the hero of extraordinary adventures.
History proper begins with Sargon the Elder, king at the first in Agade,
who soon annexed Babylon, Sippara, Kishu, Uruk, Kuta and Nipur. His
brilliant career was like an anticipation of that of the still more
glorious life of Sargon of Nineveh. His son, Naramsin, succeeded him about
3750 B.C. He conquered Elam and was a great builder. After him the most
famous king of that epoch was Gudea, of Lagash, the prince of whom we
possess the greatest number of monuments. But in these records we have but
the dust of history rather than history itself. The materials are scanty in
the extreme and the framework also is wanting.

VIII.--The Temples and the Gods of Chaldæa

The cities of the Euphrates attract no attention, like those of Egypt,
by the magnificence of their ruins. They are merely heaps of rubbish in
which no architectural outline can be traced--mounds of stiff greyish clay,
containing the remains of the vast structures that were built of bricks set
in mortar or bitumen. Stone was not used as in Egypt. While the Egyptian
temple was spread superficially over a large area, the Chaldæan
temple strove to attain as high an elevation as possible. These "ziggurats"
were composed of several immense cubes piled up on one another, and
diminishing in size up to the small shrine by which they were crowned, and
wherein the god himself was supposed to dwell.
The gods of the Euphrates, like those of the Nile, constituted a
countless multitude of visible and invisible beings, distributed into
tribes and empires throughout all the regions of the universe; but, whereas
in Egypt they were, on the whole, friendly to man, in Chaldæa they
for the most part pursued him with an implacable hatred, and only seemed to
exist in order to destroy him. Whether Semite or Sumerian, the gods, like
those of Egypt, were not abstract personages, but each contained in himself
one of the principal elements of which our universe is composed--earth,
air, sky, sun, moon and stars. The state religion, which all the
inhabitants of the same city were solemnly bound to observe, included some
dozen gods, but the private devotion of individuals supplemented this cult
by vast additions, each family possessing its own household gods.
Animals never became objects of worship as in Egypt; some of them,
however, as the bull and the lion, were closely allied to the gods. If the
idea of uniting all these gods into a single supreme one ever crossed the
mind of a Chaldæan theologian, it never spread to the people as a
whole. Among all the thousands of tablets or inscribed stones on which we
find recorded prayers, we have as yet discovered no document containing the
faintest allusion to a divine unity. The temples were miniature
reproductions of the arrangements of the universe. The "ziggurat"
represented in its form the mountain of the world, and the halls ranged at
its feet resembled approximately the accessory parts of the world; the
temple of Merodach at Babylon comprised them all up to the chambers of
fate, where the sun received every morning the tablets of destiny.
Every individual was placed, from the very moment of his birth, under
the protection of a god or goddess, of whom he was the servant, or rather
the son. These deities accompanied him by day and by night to guard him
from the evil genii ready to attack him on every side. The Chaldæans
had not such clear ideas as to what awaited them in the other world as the
Egyptians possessed.
The Chaldæan hades is a dark country surrounded by seven high
walls, and is approached by seven gates, each guarded by a pitiless warder.
Two deities rule within it--Nergal, "the lord of the great city," and
Peltis-Allat, "the lady of the great land," whither everything which has
breathed in this world descends after death. A legend relates that Allat
reigned alone in hades and was invited by the gods to a feast which they
had prepared in heaven. Owing to her hatred of the light she refused,
sending a message by her servant, Namtar, who acquitted himself, with such
a bad grace, that Anu and Ea were incensed against his mistress, and
commissioned Nergal to chastise her. He went, and finding the gates of hell
open, dragged the queen by her hair from the throne, and was about to
decapitate her, but she mollified him by her prayers and saved her life by
becoming his wife.
The nature of Nergal fitted him well to play the part of a prince of the
departed; for he was the destroying sun of summer, and the genius of
pestilence and battle. His functions in heaven and earth took up so much of
his time that he had little leisure to visit his nether kingdom, and he was
consequently obliged to content himself with the rôle of providing
subjects for it by dispatching thither the thousands of recruits which he
gathered daily from the abodes of men or from the field of battle.

IX.--Chaldæan Civilisation

The Chaldæan kings, unlike their contemporaries, the Pharaohs,
rarely put forward any pretension to divinity. They contented themselves
with occupying an intermediate position between their subjects and the
gods. While the ordinary priest chose for himself a single deity as master,
the priest-king exercised universal sacerdotal functions. He officiated for
Merodach here below, and the scrupulously minute devotions daily occupied
many hours. On great days of festival or sacrifice they laid aside all
insignia of royalty and were clad as ordinary priests.
Women do not seem to have been honoured in the Euphratean regions as in
Egypt, where the wives of the sovereign were invested with that semi-sacred
character that led the women to be associated with the devotions of the
man, and made them indispensable auxiliaries in all religious ceremonies.
Whereas the monuments on the banks of the Nile reveal to us princesses
sharing the throne of their husbands, whom they embrace with a gesture of
frank affection, in Chaldæa, the wives of the prince, his mother,
sisters, daughters and even his slaves, remain absolutely invisible to
posterity. The harem in which they were shut up by force of custom rarely,
if ever, opened its doors; the people seldom caught sight of them; and we
could count on our fingers the number of these whom the inscriptions
mention by name.
Life was not so pleasant in Chaldæa as in Egypt. The innumerable
promissory notes, the receipted accounts, the contracts of sale and
purchase--these cunningly drawn-up deeds which have been deciphered by the
hundred, reveal to us a people greedy of gain, exacting, litigious, and
almost exclusively absorbed in material concerns. The climate, too,
variable and oppressive in summer and winter alike, imposed on the
Chaldæan painful exactions, and obliged him to work with an energy of
which the majority of Egyptians would not have felt themselves capable. And
the plague of usury raged with equal violence in city and country.
In proportion, however, as we are able to bring this wonderful
civilisation to light we become more and more conscious that we have indeed
little or nothing in common with it. Its laws, customs, habits and
character, its methods of action and its modes of thought, are so far apart
from those of the present day that they seem to belong to a humanity
utterly different from our own. It thus happens that while we understand to
a shade the classical language of the Greeks and of the Romans, and can
read their works almost without effort, the great primitive literatures of
the world, the Egyptian and Chaldæan, have nothing to offer us for
the most part but a sequence of problems to solve or of enigmas to unriddle
with patience.

The Struggle of the
Nations

Maspero in this work gives us the second volume of his
great historical trilogy. He shows in parallel views the part played in the
history of the ancient world by the first Chaldæan Empire, by Syria,
by the Hyksos, or shepherd kings, of Egypt, and by the first Cossæan
kings who established the greatness of Nineveh and the Assyrian Empire. The
great Theban dynasty is then exhibited in its romantic rise under the
Pharaohs. Maspero writes not as a mere chronicler or reciter of events, but
as a philosophical historian. He makes the reader understand how fatally
the chronic militarism of these competing empires drained each of its
manhood and brought Babylon and Assyria simultaneously into a hopeless
condition of national anæmia. Equally pathetic is the picture drawn
of the gradual but sure decay of the grand empire of the Pharaohs. Maspero,
with masterly skill, passes a processional of these despots before our
eyes.

I.--The Chaldæan Empire and the Hyksos

Some countries seem destined from their origin to become the
battlefields of the contending nations which environ them. Into such
regions neighbouring peoples come to settle their quarrels, and bit by bit
they appropriate it, so that at best the only course open to the
inhabitants is to join forces with one of the invaders. From remote
antiquity this was the experience of Syria, which was thus destined to
become subject to foreign rule. Chaldæa, Egypt, Assyria and Persia in
turn presided over its destinies. Semites dwelt in the south and the
centre, while colonies from beyond the Taurus occupied the north. The
influence of Egypt never penetrated beyond the provinces lying nearest the
Dead Sea. The remaining populations looked rather to Chaldæa, and
received the continuous impress of the kingdoms of the Euphrates.
The lords of Babylon had, ordinarily, a twofold function, the priest at
first taking precedence of the soldier, but gradually yielding to the
latter as the city increased in power. Each ruler was obliged to go in
state to the temple of Bel Merodach within a year of his accession, there
to do homage to the divine statue. The long lists of early kings contain
semi-legendary names, including those of mythical heroes. Towards the end
of the twenty-fifth century, however, before the Christian era, a dynasty
arose of which all the members come within the range of history.
The first of these kings, Sumuabim, has left us some contracts bearing
the dates of one or other of the fifteen years of his reign. Of the ten
kings who followed during the period embraced between the years 2416 B.C.
and 2112 B.C., the one who ruled for the longest term was the. famous and
fortunate Khammurabi (son of Sinmuballit), who was on the throne for
fifty-five years.
While thus the first Chaldean Empire was being established, Egypt,
separated from her confines only by a narrow isthmus, loomed on the
horizon, and appeared to beckon to her rival. But she had strangely
declined from her former greatness, and had been attacked and subdued by
invaders appearing like a cloud of locusts on the banks of the Nile, to
whom was applied the name Hiq Shausu, from which the Greeks derived the
term Hyksos for this people. Modern scholars have put forward many
conflicting hypotheses as to the identity of this race of conquerors. The
monuments represent them with the Mongoloid type of feature. The problem
remains unsolved, and the origin of the Hyksos is as mysterious as
ever.
About this time took place that entrance into Egypt of the Beni-Isræl,
or Isrælites, which has since acquired a unique position in the world's
history. A comparatively ancient tradition relates that the Hebrews arrived
in Egypt during the reign of Aphobis, a Hyksos king, doubtless one of the
Apopi. The Hyksos were ousted by a hero named Ahmosis after a war of five
years. The XVIIIth Dynasty was inaugurated by the Pharaohs, whose policy
was so aggressive that Egypt, attacked by enemies from various quarters,
and roused, as it were, to warlike frenzy, hurled her armies across all her
frontiers simultaneously, and her sudden appearance in the heart of Syria
gave a new turn to human history. The isolation of the kingdoms of the
ancient world was at an end; and the conflict of the nations was about to
begin.

II.--Beginning of the Egyptian Conquest

The Egyptians had no need to anticipate Chaldæan interference
when, forsaking their ancient traditions, they penetrated for the first
time into the heart of Syria. Babylonian rule ceased to exercise direct
control when the line of sovereigns who had introduced it disappeared. When
Ammisatana died, about the year 2099 B.C., the dynasty of Khammurabi became
extinct, and kings of the semi-barbarous Cossæan race gained the
throne which had been occupied since the days of Khammurabi by
Chaldæans of the ancient stock.
The Cossæan king who seized on Babylon was named Gandish. He and
his tribe came from the mountainous regions of Zagros, on the borders of
Media. The Cossæan rule over the countries of the Euphrates was
doubtless similar in its beginnings to that which the Hyksos exercised at
first over the nomes of Egypt. The Cossæan kings did not merely bring
with them their army, but their whole nation, who spread over the whole
land. As in the case of the Hyksos, the barbarian conquerors thus became
merged in the more civilised people which they had subdued. But the
successors of Gandish were unable permanently to retain their ascendancy
over all the districts and provinces, and several of these withdrew their
allegiance. Thus in Syria the authority of Babylon was no longer supreme
when the encroachments of Egypt began, and when Thutmosis entered the
region the native levies which he encountered were by no means
formidable.
The whole country consisted of a collection of petty states, a complex
group of peoples and territories which the Egyptians themselves never
completely succeeded in disentangling. We are, however, able to distinguish
at the present time several of these groups, all belonging to the same
family, but possessing different characteristics--the kinsfolk of the
Hebrews, the children of Ishmæl and Edom, the Moabites and Ammonites, the
Arameans, the Khati and the Canaanites. The Canaanites were the most
numerous, and had they been able to confederate under a single king, it
would have been impossible for the Egyptians to have broken through the
barrier thus raised between them and the rest of Asia.

III.--The Eighteenth Theban Dynasty

The account of the first expedition undertaken by Thutmosis I. in Asia,
a region at that time new to the Egyptians, would be interesting if we
could lay our hands on it. We know that this king succeeded in reaching on
his first campaign a limit which none of his successors was able to
surpass. The results of the campaign were of a decisive character, for
Southern Syria accepted its defeat, and Gaza was garrisoned as the secure
door of Asia for future invasions. Freed from anxiety in this quarter,
Pharaoh gave his whole time to the consolidation of his power in Ethiopia,
where rebellion had become rife. Subduing this southern region and thus
extending the supremacy of Egypt in the regions of the upper Nile,
Thutmosis was able to end his days in the enjoyment of profound peace.
Thutmosis II. did not long survive him. His chief wife, Queen Hatshopsitu,
reigned for many years with great ability while the new Pharaoh, Thutmosis
III., was still a youth.
After the death of Hatshopsitu, the young Pharaoh set out with his army.
It was at the beginning of the twenty-fourth year of his reign that he
reached Gaza. Marching forward he reached the spurs of Mount Carmel and won
a decisive victory at Megiddo over the allied Syrian princes. The
inscriptions at Karnak contain long lists of the titles of the king's
Syrian subjects. The Pharaoh had now no inclination to lay down his arms,
and we have a record of twelve military expeditions of this king. When the
Syrian conquest had been effected, Egypt gave permanency to its results by
means of a series of international decrees, which established the
constitution of her empire, and brought about her concerted action with the
Asiatic powers. She had already occupied an important position among them
when Thutmosis III. died in the fifty-fifth year of his reign.
Of his successors the most prosperous was the renowned Amenothes III.,
who is immortalised by the wonderful monumental relics of his long and
peaceful reign. Amenothes devoted immense energy to the building of
temples, palaces and shrines, and gave very little of his time to war.

IV.--The Last Days of the Theban Empire

When the male line failed, there was no lack of princesses in Egypt, of
whom any one who happened to come to the throne might choose a consort
after her own heart, and thus become the founder of a new dynasty. By such
a chance alliance Harmhabi, himself a descendant of Thutmosis III., was
raised to the kingly office as first Pharaoh of the XIXth Dynasty. He
displayed great activity both within Egypt and beyond it, conducting mighty
building enterprises and also undertaking expeditions against recalcitrant
tribes along the Upper Nile.
Rameses I., who succeeded Harmhabi, was already an old man at his
accession. He reigned only six or seven years, and associated his son, Seti
I., with himself in the government from his second year of power. No sooner
had Seti celebrated his father's obsequies than he set out for war against
Southern Syria, then in open revolt. He captured Hebron, marched to Gaza,
and then northward to Lebanon, where he received the homage of the
Phoenicians, and returned in triumph to Egypt, bringing troops of
captives.
By Seti I. were built the most wonderful of the halls at Karaak and
Luxor, which render his name for ever illustrious. He associated with him
his son, still very young, who became renowned as Ramses II., one of the
greatest warriors and builders amongst all the rulers of Egypt The
monuments and temples erected by this king also are among the wonders of
the world. He married a Hittite princess when he was more than sixty. This
alliance secured a long period of peace and prosperity. Syria once more
breathed freely, her commerce being under the combined protection of the
two Powers who shared her territory.
Ramses II. was, in his youth, the handsomest man of his time, and old
age and death did not succeed in marring his face sufficiently to disfigure
it, as may be seen in his mummy to-day. Ramses the Great, who was thus the
glory of the XIXth Dynasty, reigned sixty-eight years, and lived to the age
of 100, when he passed away peacefully at Thebes. Under his successors,
Minephtah, Seti II., Amenemis and Siphtah, the nation became decadent,
though there were transient gleams of prosperity, as when Minephtah won a
great victory over the Libyans. But after the death of Siphtah, there were
many claimants for the Crown, and anarchy prevailed from one end of the
Nile valley to the other.

V.--The Rise of the Assyrian Empire

Ramses III., a descendant of Ramses II., was the founder of the last
dynasty which was able to retain the supremacy of Egypt over the Oriental
world. He took for his hero Ramses the Great, and endeavoured to rival him
in everything, and for a period the imperial power revived. In the fifth
year of his reign he was able to repulse the confederated Libyans with
complete success. Victories over other enemies followed, and also peace and
prosperity.
The cessation of Egyptian authority over those countries in which it had
so long prevailed did not at once do away with the deep impression it had
made on their constitution and customs. Syria and Phoenicia had become, as
it were, covered with an African veneer, both religion and language being
affected by Egyptian influence. But the Phoenicians became absorbed in
commercial pursuits, and failed to aspire to the inheritance which the
Egyptians were letting slip. Coeval with the decline of the power of the
latter was that of the Hittites.
The Babylonian Empire likewise degenerated under the Cossæan
kings, and gave way to the ascendancy of Assyria, which came to regard
Babylon with deadly hatred. The capitals of the two countries were not more
than 185 miles apart. The line of demarcation followed one of the many
canals between the Tigris and Euphrates. It then crossed the Tigris and was
formed by one of the rivers draining the Iranian table-land--the Upper Zab,
the Radanu, or the Turnat. Each of the two states strove by every means in
its power to stretch its boundary to the farthest limits, and the narrow
area was the scene of continual war.
Assyria was but a poor and insignificant country when compared with that
of her rival. She occupied, on each side of the middle course of the
Tigris, the territory lying between the 35th and 37th parallels of
latitude. This was a compact and healthy district, well watered by the
streams running from the Iranian plateau, which were regulated by a network
of canals and ditches for irrigation of the whole region. The provinces
thus supplied with water enjoyed a fertility which passed into a proverb.
Thus Assyria was favoured by nature, but she was not well wooded. The most
important of the cities were Assur, Arbeles, Kalakh and Nineveh.
Assur, dedicated to the deity from which it took its name, placed on the
very edge of the Mesopotamian desert, with the Tigris behind it, was,
during the struggle with the Chaldæan power, exposed to the attacks
of the Babylonian armies; while Nineveh, entrenched behind the Tigris and
the Zab, was secure from any sudden assault. Thus it became the custom for
the kings to pass at Nineveh the trying months of the year, though Assur
remained the official capital and chief sanctuary of the empire, which
began its aggrandisement under Assurballit, by his victory over the
Cossæan kings of Babylon. But the heroic age comes before us in the
career of Shalmaneser I., a powerful sovereign who in a few years doubled
the extent of his dominions. He beautified Assur, but removed his court to
Kalakh. His son, Tukulti-ninip I., made himself master of Babylon, and was
the first of his race who was able to assume the title of King of Sumir and
Akkad.
This first conquest of Chaldæa did not produce lasting results, for the
sons of the hero fought each other for the Crown, and Assyria became the
scene of civil wars. The fortunes of Babylon rose again, but the depression
of Assyria did not last long. Nineveh had become the metropolis. Confusion
was increased in the whole of this vast region of Asia by the invasion and
partial triumph of the Elamites over Babylon. But these were driven back
when Nebuchadrezzar arose in Babylon. To Merodach he prayed, and "his
prayer was heard," and he invaded Elam, taking its king by surprise and
defeating him.
Nebuchadrezzar no longer found any rival to oppose him save the king of
Assyria, whom he attacked; but now his aggression was checked, for though
his forces were successful at first, they were ultimately sent flying
across the frontiers with great loss, through the prowess of Assurishishi,
who became a mighty king in Nineveh. But his son, Tiglath-pileser, is the
first of the great warrior kings of Assyria to stand out before us with any
definite individuality. He immediately, on his accession, began to employ
in aggressive wars the well-equipped army left by his father, and in three
campaigns he regained all the territories that Shalmaneser I. had lost, and
also conquered various regions of Asia Minor and Syria. In a rising of the
Chaldæans he met with a severe defeat, which he did not long survive,
dying about the year 1100 B.C.
There is only one gleam in the murky night of this period. A certain
Assurirba seems to have crossed Northern Syria, and, following in the
footsteps of his great ancestor, to have penetrated as far as the
Mediterranean; on the rocks of Mount Amanus, facing the sea, he left a
triumphal inscription in which he set forth the mighty deeds he had
accomplished. His good fortune soon forsook him. The Arameans wrested from
him the fortresses of Pitru and Mutkinu, which commanded both banks of the
Euphrates near Carchemish.
What were the causes of this depression from which Babylon suffered at
almost regular intervals, as though stricken with some periodic malady? The
main reason soon becomes apparent if we consider the nature of the country
and the material conditions of its existence. Chaldæa was neither
extensive nor populous enough to afford a solid basis for the ambition of
her princes. Since nearly every man capable of bearing arms was enrolled in
the army, the Chaldæan kings had no difficulty in raising, at a
moment's notice, a force which could be employed to repel an invasion, or
to make a sudden attack on some distant territory; it was in schemes that
required prolonged and sustained effort that they felt the drawbacks of
their position. In that age of hand-to-hand combats, the mortality in
battle was very high; forced marches through forests and across mountains
entailed a heavy loss of men, and three or four campaigns against a
stubborn foe soon reduced the army to a condition of weakness.
When Nebuchadrezzar I. made war on Assurishishi, he was still weak from
the losses he had incurred during the campaign against Elam, and could not
conduct his attack with the same vigour as had gained him victory on the
banks of the Ulai. In the first year he only secured a few indecisive
advantages; in the second he succumbed.
The same reasons which explain the decadence of Babylon show us the
causes of the periodic eclipses undergone by Assyria after each outburst of
her warlike spirit. The country was now forced to pay for the glories of
Assurishishi and of Tiglath-pileser by falling into an inglorious state of
languor and depression. And ere long newer races asserted themselves which
had gradually come to displace the nations over which the dynasties of
Thutmosis and Ramses had held sway as tributary to them. The Hebrews on the
east, and the Philistines on the southwest, were about to undertake the
conquest of Kharu, as the land which is known to us as Canaan was styled by
the Egyptians.

The Passing of the
Empires

Maspero, in the third volume of his great archæological
trilogy, completing his "History of the Ancient Peoples of the Classic
East," deals with the passing in succession of the supremacies of the
Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldæan, Medo-Persian and Iranian Empires. The
period dealt with in this graphic narrative covers fully five centuries,
from 850 B.C. to 330 B.C. M. Maspero in cinematographic style passes before
us the actors in many of the most thrilling of historic dramas. One
excellent feature of his method is his balancing of evidences. Where
Xenophon and Herodotus absolutely differ he tells what each asserts. With
consummate skill also he arranges his recital like a series of dissolving
views, showing how epochs overlap, and how as Babylon is fading Assyria is
rising, and as the latter in turn is waning Media is looming into sight. We
are, in this third instalment of Maspero's monumental work, brought to
understand how the decline of one mighty Asiatic empire after another,
culminating in the overthrow of the Persian dominion by Alexander, prepared
at length for the entry of Western nations on the stage, and how Europe
became the heir of the culture and civilisation of the Orient.

I.--The Assyrian Revival

Since the extinction of the race of Nebuchadrezzar I. Babylon had been a
prey to civil discord and foreign invasion. It was a period of calamity and
distress, during which the Arabs or the Arameans ravaged the country, and
an Elamite usurper overthrew the native dynasty and held authority for
seven years. This intruder having died about the year 1030 B.C., a
Babylonian of noble extraction expelled the Elamites and succeeded in
bringing the larger part of the dominion under his rule. Five or six of his
descendants passed away and another was feebly reigning when war broke out
afresh with Assyria, and the two armies encountered each other again on
their former battlefield between the Lower Zab and the Turnat. The
Assyrians were victorious under their king, Tukulti-ninip II., who did not
live long to enjoy his triumph. His son, Assur-nazir-pal, inherited a
kingdom which embraced scarcely any of the countries that had paid tribute
to former sovereign, for most of these had gradually regained their
liberty.
Nearly the whole empire had to be re-conquered under much the same
conditions as in the first instance, but Assyria had recovered the vitality
and elasticity of its earlier days. Its army now possessed a new element.
This was the cavalry, properly so called, as an adjunct to the chariotry.
But it must be remembered that the strength and discipline which the
Assyrian troops possessed in such high degree were common to the military
forces of all the great states--Elam, Damascus, Nairi, the Hittites and
Chaldea. Thus, the armies of all these states being, as a rule, both in
strength and numbers much on a par, no single power was able to inflict on
any of the rest such a defeat as would be its destruction. Twice at least
in three centuries a king of Assyria had entered Babylon, and twice the
Babylonians had forced the intruder back.
Profiting by the past, Assur-nazir-pal resolutely avoided those
conflicts in which so many of his predecessors had wasted their lives. He
was content to devote his attention to less dangerous enemies than the
people of Babylonia. Invading Nummi, he quickly captured its chief cities,
then subdued the Kirruri, attacked the fortress of Nishtu, and pillaged
many of the cities around. Bubu, the Chief of Nishtu, was flayed alive.
After a reign of twenty-five years he died in 860 B.C.
A summary of the events in the reign of thirty-five years of his
successor, Shalmaneser III., is contained on the Black Obelisk of Nimroud,
discovered by Layard and preserved in the British Museum. He conquered the
whole country round Lake Van, ravaging the country "as a savage bull
ravages and tramples under his feet the fertile fields." An attack on
Damascus led to a terrible but indecisive battle, Benhadad, King of Syria,
proving himself fully a match for the invader. But a war with Babylon,
lasting for a period of two years, ended with victory for Assyria, and
Shalmaneser, entering the city, went direct to the temple of E-shaggil,
where he offered worship to the local gods.
Memorable events followed, first in connection with Damascus, Ahab, King
of Isræl, Benhadad's ally, and other confederates, had not been faithful
to his suzerainty. Ahab had by treaty agreed to surrender the city of
Ramoth-gilead to the Syrian monarch and had not fulfilled his pledge. He
and Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, had concluded an alliance against Benhadad,
who seized the disputed fortress, and the two had organised an expedition,
which led to the death of Ahab in battle. Isræl lapsed once more into the
position of a vassal to Benhadad, and long remained in that subjection.
The last days of Shalmaneser were embittered by the revolt of his son,
Assur-dain-pal, and his death occurred in 824 B.C. The kingdom was shaken
by the struggle that ensued between his sons. Samsi-ramman IV., the brother
of Assurdain-pal, reigned for twelve years; his son, Ramman-nirari III.,
had married the Babylonian princess Sammuramat, and so had secured peace.
He was an energetic and capable ruler. To him at length Damascus made
submission and paid tribute. But Menuas, a bold and able King of Urartu,
proved himself a thorn in the side of the Assyrian king, for he delivered
from the yoke of Nineveh the tribes on the borders of Lake Urmiah and all
the adjacent regions.
Everywhere along the Lower Zab, and on the frontier as far as the
Euphrates, the Assyrian outposts were driven back by Menuas, who also
overcame the Hittites and by his campaigns formed that kingdom of Van, or
Armenia, which was quite equal in size to Assyria. He died shortly before
the death of Ramman-nirari, in 784 B.C. His son, Argistis, spent the first
few years of his reign in completing his conquests in the country north of
the Araxes. He was attacked by Shalmaneser IV., son of Ramman-nirari, but
defeated the Assyrians.
Misfortunes accumulated for the rulers and people who had exercised so
wide a sway, and the end of the Second Assyrian Empire was not far off.
Syria was lost under Assur-nirari III., who was also driven from Calah by
sedition in 746 B.C. He died some months later and the dynasty came to an
end, and in 745 a usurper, the leader of the revolt at Calah, proclaimed
himself king under the name of Tiglath-pileser III. The Second Empire had
lasted rather less than a century and a half.

II.--To the Destruction of Babylon

Events proved that, at this period at any rate, the decadence of Assyria
was not due to any exhaustion of the race or impoverishment of the country,
but was owing Mainly to the incapacity of its kings and the lack of energy
displayed by their generals. The Assyrian troops had lost none of their
former valour, but their leaders had shown less foresight and skill. As
soon as Tiglath-pileser assumed leadership, the armies regained their
former prestige and supremacy.
The empire still included the original patrimony of Assur and its
ancient colonies on the Upper Tigris, but the buffer provinces, containing
the tribes on the borders of Syria, Namri, Nairi, Melitene, had thrown off
the yoke, as had the Arameans, while Menuas of Armenia and his son Argistis
had by their invasions laid waste the Median territory. Sharduris III., son
of Argistis, succeeded to the throne of Armenia about 760, and at once
overran the district of Babilu, carrying by storm three royal castles, 23
cities, and 60 villages. He also captured the castles of the mountaineers
of Melitene. Crossing Mount Taurus about 756, he forced the Hittites to
swear allegiance.
It was in the middle of this eighth century B.C., in the days of
Tiglath-pileser III. of Assyria, and Sharduris III. of Armenia, that
Isræl, under Jehoash, and his son Jeroboam II.; inspired by the
exhortations of Elisha the prophet, was rehabilitated for a season, winning
victories over the Syrians and taking vengeance on Damascus, and then
attacking the Moabites. The sudden collapse of Damascus led to the decline
of Syria, but though Jeroboam II. seemed to be firmly seated as king in
Samaria, the downfall of Isræl and Judah alike, as well as of Tyre, Edom,
Gaza, Moab, and Ammon, was foretold by the prophet Amos, while from the
midst of Ephraim the priest-seer, Hosea, was never weary of reproaching the
tribes with their ingratitude and of predicting their coming
desolation.
Ere long, Tiglath-pileser began his campaigns against them by attacking
the Arameans, dwelling on the banks of the Tigris. He overthrew them at the
first encounter. Nabunazir, then king in Babylon, bowed before him and
swore fidelity to him, and he visited Sippar, Nipur, Babylon, Borsippa,
Kuta, Kishu, Dilbat and Uruk, Babylonian "cities without a peer," and
offered sacrifices to all their gods--to Bel Zirbanit, Nebo, Tashmit, and
Nir-gal. This settlement took place in 745 B.C.
His next exploit was the rapid conquest of the mountainous and populous
regions on the shores of the Caspian. And now he ventured to try
conclusions with Armenia and to attack the famous kingdom of Urartu in the
difficult fastnesses round Lakes Van and Urumiah. Crossing the Euphrates in
the spring of 743 B.C., he captured Arpad, and soon afterwards marched
forth to meet the great army of Sharduris. The rout of the latter was
complete, and he fled, after losing 73,000 men. The victor was covered with
glory; yet the triumph cost him dear, for the forces left him were not
sufficient to finish the campaign, nor to extort allegiance from the Syrian
princes who had allied themselves with Sharduris.
After spending the winter in Nineveh, reorganising his troops, the
Assyrian inaugurated a campaign which ended in the subjugation of Northern
Syria and its incorporation in the empire. Only one difficulty foiled
Tiglath-pileser. He failed to capture the impregnable fortress of Dhuspas,
in which Sharduris had taken refuge. This capital of Urartu held out
against a long siege, and at length the Assyrian army withdrew. Sharduris
remained king as before, but he was utterly spent, and his power had
received a blow from which it never recovered. Since then, Armenia has more
than once challenged fortune, but always with the same result; it fared no
better under Tigranes in the Roman epoch than under Sharduris in the time
of the Assyrians.
As for Egypt at this period, it was ruled over by what is known as the
Bubastite dynasty, so called from the city of Bubastis, in the Delta, where
the Pharaohs of the time, Osorkon I., his son Takeloti I., and his
grandson, Osorkon II., for an interval of fifty years chiefly resided,
abstaining from politics, so that the country enjoyed an interval of
profound peace. But the old cause brought about the fall of this dynasty
also. Military feudalism again developed and Egypt split up into many petty
states. The sceptre at length passed to another dynasty, this time of
Tanite origin. Petubastis was the first of the line, but the power was
really in the hands of the priests, one of whom, Auiti, actually declared
himself king, together with Pharaoh.
Sensational events followed. The weakness of Egypt tempted an uprising
of the Ethiopians, who overran a great part of the country. And it was at
this period that Tiglath-pileser crushed the kingdom of Isræl, King Pekah
being compelled to flee from Samaria into the mountains, while the
inhabitants of Naphtali and Gilead were carried into captivity.
Nabonazir, King of Babylon, who had never swerved from the fidelity he
had sworn to his mighty ally after the events of 745, died in 734 B.C., and
was succeeded by his son Nabunadinziri, who at the end of two years was
assassinated in a popular rising, and one of his sons, Nabushumukin, who
was concerned in the rising, usurped the crown. He wore it for two months
and twelve days, and then abdicated in favour of a certain Ukinzir, an
Aramean chief.
But Tiglath-pileser gave the new dynasty no time to settle itself firmly
on the throne. The year after his return from Syria he marched against it.
After two years of fighting Ukinzir was overcome and captured.
Tiglath-pileser entered Babylon as conqueror, and caused himself to be
proclaimed King of Sumir and Akkad within its walls. Many centuries had
passed since the two empires had been united under one ruler. His
Babylonian subjects seem to have taken a liking for him; but he did not
long survive his triumph, dying after having reigned eighteen years over
Assyria, and less than two years over Babylon and Chaldæa.
The next great Assyrian name is that of Sargon II., whose origin is not
clear. And the incidents of the revolution which raised him to the throne
are also unknown. The first few years of his reign, which commenced in 722
B.C., were harassed by revolts among many of the border tribes, but these
he resolutely faced at all points, inflicting overwhelming defeats on the
Medes and the Armenians. The Philistines were cowed by the storming of
Ashdod, and Sargon subdued Phoenicia, carrying his arms to the sea. This
great monarch, while wars raged round him, found time for extensive works
of a peaceful character, completing the system of irrigation, and erecting
buildings at Calah and Nineveh, and raising a magnificent palace at
Dur-Sharrukin.
And here he intended in peace to build a great city, but he was, in 105
B.C., assassinated by an alien soldier. Sennacherib, his son, fighting on
the frontier, was recalled and proclaimed immediately. He either failed to
inherit his father's good fortune, or lacked his ability. Instead of
conciliating the vanquished, he massacred entire tribes, and failed to
re-people these with captive exiles from other nations. So, towards the end
of his reign--which terminated in 681 B.C.--he found himself ruling over a
sparsely inhabited desert where his father had left him flourishing and
populous cities. Phoenicia and Judah formed an alliance with each other and
with Egypt. Sennacherib bestirred himself and Tyre perished. The Assyrian
invader then attacked Judah and besieged Jerusalem, where Hezekiah was king
and Isaiah was prophesying. Whatever was the cause, half the army perished
by pestilence, and Sennacherib led back the remnants of his force to
Nineveh.
The disaster was terrible, but not irreparable, for another and an equal
host could be raised. And it was needed to quell a great Babylonian revolt
led by Merodachbaladan, who had given the signal of rebellion to the
mountain tribes also. After a series of terrible conflicts, Babylon was
taken. And now Sennacherib, who had shown leniency after two previous
revolts, displayed unbounded fury in his triumph. The massacre lasted
several days, none being spared of the citizens. Piles of corpses filled
the streets. The temples and palaces were pillaged, and finally the city
was burnt.
In the midst of his costly and absorbing wars we may well wonder how
Sennacherib found time and means for building villas and temples; yet he
is, nevertheless, the Assyrian king who has left us the largest number of
monuments.
His last years were embittered by the fierce rivalry of his sons. One of
these he nominated his successor, Esarhaddon, son of a Babylonian wife.
During his absence from Nineveh, on the 20th day of Teleth, 681, his
father, Sennacherib, when praying before the image of his god, was
assassinated by two other sons, Sharezer and Adrammelech. Esarhaddon,
hearing of this tragedy, gathered an army, and in a battle defeated
Sharezer and established himself on the throne.

III.--The Crisis of the Assyrian Power

Esarhaddon was personally inclined for peace, for he delighted in
building; but unfortunate disturbances did not permit him to pursue his
favourite occupation without interruption, and, like his warlike
predecessors, he was constrained to pass most of his life on the
battlefield. He began his reign by quelling an insurrection of the
Cimmerians in the territories on the border of the Black Sea. Sidon
rebelled ungratefully, although his father had saved her from desolation by
Tyre. He stormed and burnt the city. The Scythian tribes came on the field
in 678 B.C., but they were diplomatically conciliated.
Now followed a memorable event. Babylon was rebuilt. Esarhaddon used all
the available captives taken in war on the foundations and the fabrication
of bricks, erected walls, rebuilt all the temples, and lavishly devoted
gold, silver, costly stones, rare woods, and plates of enamel to
decoration. The canals were made good for the gardens, and the people, who
had been scattered in various provinces, were encouraged to return to their
homes.
But fresh foreign complications arose through the support given
continually to recalcitrant states in the south of Egypt. Esarhaddon was
provoked to undertake the first actual invasion of Egypt in force by
Assyria for the purpose of subduing the country. Over a great combination
of the Egyptians and Ethiopians he won a crushing victory. Memphis was
taken and sacked. Henceforth, Esarhaddon, in his pride, styled himself King
of Egypt, and King of the Kings of Egypt, of the Said, and of Ethiopia. But
he was not very long permitted to enjoy the glory of his triumph; a
determined revolt of the conquered country demanded a fresh campaign. He
set out, but was in bad health, and, his malady increasing, he died on the
journey in the twelfth year of his reign.
Before starting on the expedition, he had realised the impossibility of
a permanent amalgamation of Assyria and Babylon, notwithstanding his
personal affection for Babylon. Accordingly, he designated as his
successors his two sons. Assurbanipal was to be King of Assyria, and
Shamash-shumukin King of Babylon, under the suzerainty of his brother. As
soon as Esarhaddon had passed away, the separation he had planned took
place automatically, the two sons proclaiming themselves respectively kings
of Assyria and Babylon. Thus Babylon regained half its independence. But
the Assyrian Empire was now at its zenith. Egypt was quelled by the army of
Esarhaddon, and to Assurbanipal submitted in vassalage the nations of the
Mediterranean coast.
Now followed years of exhausting warfare and of victory after victory,
which fatally wasted the strength of Assyria. Never had the empire been so
respected; never had so many nations united under one sceptre. But troubles
accumulated. Mutiny in Egypt called for another expedition, which led to
the capture and sacking of Thebes. Next came a war with Elam, ending in its
subjection to Assyria, for the first time in history.
But with success. Assurbanipal grew arrogant in his attitude to his
brother, the King of Babylon, and a fratricidal war resulted in the defeat
and death of Shamash-shumukin and the capture of the rival capital. But
Assyria was now near one of its recurrent periods of exhaustion, and foes
were rising for a formidable attack.

IV.--Fall of Media and Chaldæa

At the very height of his apparent grandeur and prosperity Assurbanipal
was attacked by Phraortes, King of the Medes, who paid for his temerity
with his life, being left dead, with the greater part of his army, on the
field. But the sequel was unexpected, for Cyaxares, son of the slain Mede,
stubbornly continued the conflict, patiently reorganising his army, until
he won a great victory over the Assyrian generals, and shut up the remnant
of their forces in Nineveh.
Assurbanipal, after a reign of forty-two years, died about 625 B.C., and
was succeeded by his son, Assuretililani. Against his brother and
successor, Sinsharishkin, the standard of rebellion was raised by
Nabopolassar, the governor of Babylon, who declared himself independent,
and assumed the title of king, but his reign not long after ended with his
death, in 605 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar was proclaimed king in Babylon.
His reign was long and prosperous, and, on the whole, a peaceful one.
The most notable event in the career of Nebuchadrezzar II., was the capture
and destruction of Jerusalem, in consequence of a revolt of Tyre and Judea.
The unfortunate king, Zedekiah, saw his sons slain in his presence, and
then, his eyes having been put out, he was loaded with chains, and sent to
Babylon.
Nebuchadrezzar died in 562 B.C. after a reign of fifty-five years. His
successors were weak rulers, and their reigns were brief and inglorious.
The army was suffered to dwindle, and the dynasty founded by Nabopolassar
came to an end in 555 B.C., when Labashi-marduk, the last of the line,
after reigning only nine months, was murdered by Nabonidus, a native
Babylonian. This usurper witnessed the rapid rise of the new Iranian power
which was to destroy him and Babylon. In 553 B.C., Cyrus, a Persian
general, revolted against Astyages, defeated him, and destroyed the Median
Empire at one blow.
The only army that was a match for that of Cyrus was the Lydian host
under King Croesus. A conflict took place between the two, ending in the
defeat of the most powerful potentate of Asia Minor. But Cyrus treated
Croesus with consideration, and the Lydian king is said to have become the
friend of the mighty Persian. From that day neither Egypt nor Chaldæa
had any chance of victory on the battlefield. Nabonidus became a mere
vassal of Cyrus, and lived more or less inactively in his palace at Tima,
leaving the direction of power at Babylon in the hands of his son,
Bel-sharuzu.
At length the Babylonians grew weary of their king. Nabonidus had never
been popular, and the discontent of the people at length called for the
intervention of the suzerain. In 538 Cyrus moved against Babylon, and
Nabonidus now retreated into the city with his troops, and prepared for a
siege. But Cyrus, taking advantage of the time of the year when the waters
were lowest, diverted the Tigris, so that his soldiers were able to enter
the city without striking a blow. Nabonidus surrendered, and Belsharuzur
was slain. With him perished the second Chaldæan Empire.
The sagacious conqueror did not pillage the city, and treated the
citizens with clemency. Cyrus associated his son Cambyses with himself,
making him King of Babylon. Nothing in Babylon was changed, and she
remained what she had been since the fall of Assyria, the real capital of
the regions between the Mediterranean and the Zapcos. The Persian dominion
extended undisputed as far as the Isthmus of Suez. Under Cyrus took place
the first return of the Jews to Jerusalem.
According to Xenophon, the great Persian, in 529 B.C., died peaceably on
his bed, surrounded by his children, and edifying them by his wisdom; but
Herodotus declares that he perished miserably in fighting with the
barbarian hosts of the Massagetæ, on the steppes of Turkestan, beyond
the Arxes. He had believed that his destiny was to found an empire in which
all other ancient empires should be merged, and he all but accomplished the
stupendous task. When he passed away, Egypt alone remained to be conquered.
Cambyses succeeded, took up the enterprise against Egypt; but after a
series of successes met with reverses in Ethiopia, which affected his mind,
and he is said to have ended his own life. Power fell into the hands of a
chief of one of the seven great clans, the famous Darius, son of Hystaspes,
whose rival was Nebuchadrezzar III., then King of Babylon.
Once more, in his reign, Babylon was besieged and fell, Nebuchadrezzar
being executed. He was an impostor who had pretended to be the son of the
great Nebuchadrezzar. And now approached the last days of the greatness of
the Eastern world, for the eve of the Macedonian conquest of the Near East
had arrived.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

The Antiquities of the
Jews

Josephus's "Antiquities of the Jews" traces the whole
history of the race down to the outbreak of the great war. He also wrote an
autobiography (see Lives and Letters) and a polemical treatise, "Flavius
Josephus against Apion." His style is so classically elegant that critics
have called him the Greek Livy. The following summary of the "Antiquities
of the Jews" contains the substance of the really valuable sections, other
portions being little else than a paraphrase of the histories embodied in
the Old Testament.

I.--From Alexander to Antiochus

After Philip, King of Macedon, had been treacherously slain by
Pausanias, he was succeeded by his son Alexander, who, passing over the
Hellespont, overcame the army of Darius, King of Persia, at Granicum. So he
marched over Lydia, subdued Ionia, overran Caria and Pamphylia, and again
defeated Darius at Issus. The Persian king fled into his own land, and his
mother, wife, and children were captured. Alexander besieged and took first
Tyre, and then Gaza, and next marched towards Jerusalem.
At Sapha, in full view of the city, he was met by a procession of the
priests in fine linen, and a multitude of the citizens in white, the
high-priest, Jaddua, being at their head in his resplendent robes.
Graciously responding to the salutations of priests and people, Alexander
entered Jerusalem, worshipped and sacrificed in the Temple, and then
invited the people to ask what favours they pleased of him; whereupon the
high-priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers,
and pay no tribute on the seventh year. All their requests were granted,
and Alexander led his army into the neighbouring cities.
Now, when Alexander was dead and his government had been divided among
many, Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, by treachery seized Jerusalem, and took
away many captives to Egypt, and settled them there. His successor, Ptolemy
Philadelphus, restored to freedom 120,000 Jews who had been kept in slavery
at the instance of Aristeus, one of his most intimate friends. He also
dedicated many gifts to God, and showed great friendship to the Jews in his
dominions.
Other kings in Asia followed the example of Philadelphus, conferring
honours on Jews who became their auxiliaries, and making them citizens with
privileges equal to those enjoyed by the Macedonians and Greeks. In the
reign of Antiochus the Great the Jews suffered greatly while he was at war
with Ptolemy Philopater, and with his son, called Epiphanes. When Antiochus
had beaten Ptolemy, he seized on Judea, but ultimately he made a league
with Ptolemy, gave him his daughter Cleopatra to wife, and yielded up to
him Celesyria, Samaria, Judea, and Phoenicia by way of dowry. Onias, son of
Simon the Just, was then high-priest. He greatly provoked the king by
neglecting to pay his taxes, so that Ptolemy threatened to settle his
soldiers in Jerusalem to live on the citizens.
But Joseph, the nephew of Onias, by his wisdom brought all things right
again, and entered into friendship with the king, who lent him soldiers and
sent him to force the people in various cities to pay their taxes. Many who
refused were slain. Joseph not only thus gathered great wealth for himself,
but sent much to the king and to Cleopatra, and to powerful men at the
court of Egypt. He had a son named Hyrcanus, who became noted for his
ability, and crossed the Jordan with many followers; he made war
successfully on the Arabians, built a magnificent stone castle, and ruled
over all the region for seven years, even all the time that Seleucus was
king of Syria. But when Seleucus was dead, his brother Antiochus Epiphanes
took the kingdom, and Hyrcanus, seeing that Antiochus had a great army,
feared he should be taken and punished for what he had done to the
Arabians. So he took his own life, Antiochus seizing his possessions.

II.--To the Death of Judas

Antiochus, despising the son of Ptolemy as being but weak, and coveting
the possession of Egypt, conducted an expedition against that country with
a great force; but was compelled to withdraw by a declaration of the
Romans. On his way back from Alexandria he took the city of Jerusalem,
entering it without fighting in the 143d year of the kingdom of the
Seleucidæ. He slew many of the citizens, plundered the city of much
money, and returned to Antioch.
After two years he again came up against Jerusalem, and this time left
the Temple bare, taking away the golden altar and candlesticks, the table
of shewbread, and the altar of burnt offering, and all the secret
treasures. He slew some of the people, and carried off into captivity about
ten thousand, burnt the finest buildings, erected a citadel, and therein
placed a garrison of Macedonians. Building an idol altar in the Temple, he
offered swine on it, and he compelled many of the Jews to raise idol altars
in every town and village, and to offer swine on them every day. But many
disregarded him, and these underwent bitter punishment. They were tortured
or scourged or crucified.
Now, at this time there dwelt at Modin a priest named Mattathias, a
citizen of Jerusalem. He had five sons, one of whom, Judas, was called
Maccabæus. Mattathias and his sons not only refused to sacrifice as
Antiochus commanded, but, with his sons, attacked and slew an apostate
Jewish worshipper and Apelles, the king's general, and a few of his
soldiers. Then the priest and his five sons overthrew the idol altar, and
fled into the desert, followed by many of their followers with their wives
and children. About a thousand of these who had hidden in caves were
overtaken and destroyed; but many who escaped joined themselves to
Mattathias, and appointed him to be the ruler, who taught them to fight,
even on the Sabbath. Gathering a great army, he overthrew the idol altars,
and slew those who broke the laws. But after ruling one year, he fell into
a distemper, and committed to his sons the conduct of affairs. He was
buried at Modin, all the people making great lamentation. His son Judas
took upon himself the administration of affairs in the 146th year, and with
the help of his brothers and others, cast their enemies out of the country
and purified the land of its pollutions. Judas celebrated in the Temple at
Jerusalem the festival of the restoration of the sacrifices for eight
days.
From that time we call the yearly celebration the Feast of Lights. Judas
also rebuilt the wall and reared towers of great height. When these things
were over he made excursions against adversaries on every side, he and his
brothers Simon and Jonathan subduing in turn Idumæa, Gilead, Jazer,
Tyre, and Ashdod. Antiochus died of a distemper which overtook him as he
was fleeing from Elymais, from which he was driven during an attack upon
its gates. Before he died he called his friends about him, and confessed
that his calamities had come upon him for the miseries he had brought upon
the Jewish nation.
Antiochus was succeeded by his son, Antiochus Eupator, a boy of tender
age, whose guardians were Philip and Lysias. He reigned but two years,
being put to death, together with Lysias, by order of the usurper
Demetrius, the son of Seleucus, who fled from Rome, and, landing in Syria,
gathered an army, and was joyfully received by the people. Against
Jerusalem, Demetrius sent an expedition commanded by his general,
Bacchides. Judas Maccabæus, fighting with great courage, but having
with him only 800 men, fell in the battle. His brothers Simon and Jonathan,
receiving his body by treaty from the enemy, carried it to the village of
Modin, and there buried him. He left behind him a glorious reputation, by
gaining freedom for his nation and delivering them from slavery under the
Macedonians. He died after filling the office of high-priest for three
years.

III.--To the Roman Dominion

Jonathan and his brother Simon continued the war against Bacchides. They
were assisted by Alexander, the son of Antiochus Epiphanes, who, in the
160th year, came up into Syria against Demetrius, and defeated and slew him
in a great battle near Ptolemais. But the son of Demetrius, named after his
father, in the 165th year, after Alexander had seated himself on the throne
and had gained in marriage Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy Philometor, came
from Crete with a great number of mercenary soldiers. Jonathan and Simon,
brothers of Judas Maccabæus, entering into league with Demetrius, who
offered them very great advantages, defeated at Ashdod the army sent by
Alexander under Apollonius.
A breach took place between Alexander and Ptolemy through the treachery
of Ammonius, a friend of the former, and the Egyptian king took away his
daughter Cleopatra from her husband, and immediately sent to Demetrius,
offering to make a league of mutual assistance and friendship with him, to
give him his daughter in marriage and to restore him to the principality of
his fathers. These overtures were joyfully accepted, and Ptolemy came to
Antioch and persuaded the people to receive Demetrius. Alexander was beaten
in a battle by the two allies and fled into Arabia, where, however, his
head was speedily cut off by Zabdiel, a prince of the country, and sent to
Ptolemy. But that king, through wounds caused by falling from his horse,
died a few days afterwards.
Demetrius, being secure in power, disbanded a great part of his army,
but this action greatly irritated the soldiers. Furthermore, he was hated,
as his father had been, by the people of Syria. A revolt was raised by an
Apanemian named Trypho, who overcame Demetrius in a fight, and took from
him both his elephants and the city of Antioch. Demetrius on this defeat
retired into Cilicia, and Trypho delivered the kingdom to Antiochus, the
youthful son of Alexander, who quickly sent ambassadors to Jonathan and
made him his confederate and friend, confirming him in the high-priesthood
and yielding up to him four prefectures which had been added to Judea.
Accordingly, Jonathan promptly joined him in a war against Demetrius, who
was again defeated.
Soon after Demetrius had been carried into captivity Trypho deserted
Antiochus, who had now reigned four years. He usurped power, which he
basely abused; and Antiochus Soter, brother of Demetrius, raised a force
against him and drove him away to Apamea, where he was put to death, his
term of power having lasted only three years. Antiochus Soter then attacked
Simon, who successfully resisted, established peace, and ruled in all for
eight years. His death also was the result of treachery, his son-in-law
Ptolemy playing him false. His son Hyrcanus became high-priest, and
speedily ejected the forces of Ptolemy from the land. Subduing all
factions, he ruled justly for thirty-one years, leaving five sons.
The eldest, Aristobulus, purposed to change the government into a
kingdom, and placed a diadem on his own head; but his mother, to whom the
supremacy had been entrusted, disputed his authority. He cast her into
prison, where she was starved to death; and next he compassed the death of
his brother Antigonus, but was soon attacked by a painful disease. He
reigned only one year. His widow, Alexandra, let his brothers out of prison
and made Alexander Janneus king.
His reign was one of war and disorder. With savage cruelty he repressed
rebellion, condemning hundreds of Jews to crucifixion. While these were yet
living, their wives and children were slain before their eyes. His life was
ended by a sickness which lasted three years, and after his death civil war
broke out between his two sons, Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, in which great
barbarities were committed. The conflict was terminated by the intervention
of the Romans under Scarus. The two brothers appealed to Pompey after he
came to Damascus; but that Roman general marched against Jerusalem and took
it by force. Thus we lost our liberty as a nation and became subject to the
Romans.

IV.--The Jews and the Romans

Crassus next came with Roman troops into Judea and pillaged the Temple,
and then marched into Parthia, where both he and his army perished. Then
Cassius obtained Syria, and checked the Parthians. He passed on to Judea,
fell on Tarichæa, and took it, and carried away 3,000 Jewish captives. A
wealthy Idumean named Antipater, who had been a great friend of Hyrcanus,
and had helped him against Aristobulus, was a very active and seditious
man. He had married Cypros, a lady of his own Idumean race, by whom he had
four sons, Phaselus, and Herod, who afterwards became king, and Joseph, and
Pheroras; and a daughter, Salome. He cultivated friendship with other
potentates, especially with the King of Arabia, to whom he committed the
care of his children while he fought against Aristobulus. But when
Cæsar had taken Rome, and after Pompey and the senate had fled beyond
the Ionian Sea, Aristobulus was set free from the bonds in which he had
been laid. Cæsar resolved to send him with two legions into Syria to
set matters right; but Aristobulus had no enjoyment of this trust, for he
was poisoned by Pompey's party. But Scipio, sent by Pompey to slay
Alexander, son of Aristobulus, cut off his head at Antioch. And Ptolemy,
son of Menneus, ruler of Chalcis, took Alexander's brethren to him, and
sent his son Philippion to Askelon to Aristobulus's wife, and desired her
to send back with him her son Antigonus and her daughters; the one of whom,
Alexandra, Philippion fell in love with, and married her; though afterwards
his father Ptolemy slew him, and married Alexandra.
Now, after Pompey was dead, and after the victory Cæsar had gained
over him, Antipater, who had managed the Jewish affairs, became very useful
to Cæsar when he made war against Egypt, and that by the order of
Hyrcanus. He brought over to the side of Cæsar the principal men of
the Arabians, and also Jamblicus, the ruler of the Syrians, and Ptolemy,
his son, and Tholomy, the son of Sohemus, who dwelt at Mount Libanus, and
almost all the cities, and with 3,000 armed Jews he joined Mithradates of
Pergamus, who was marching with his auxiliaries to aid Cæsar.
Antipater and Mithradates together won a pitched battle against the
Egyptians, and Cæsar not only then commended Antipater, but used him
throughout that war in the most hazardous undertakings, and finally, at the
end of that campaign, made him procurator of Judea, at the same time
appointing Hyrcanus high-priest. Antipater, seeing that Hyrcanus was of a
slow and slothful temper, made his eldest son, Phaselus, governor of
Jerusalem; but committed Galilee to his next son, Herod, who was only
fifteen, but was a youth of great mind, and soon proved his courage, and
won the love of the Syrians by freeing their country of a nest of robbers,
and slaying the captain of these, one Hezekias.
Thus Herod became known to Sextus Cæsar, a relation of the great
Cæsar, who was now president of Syria. Now, the growing reputation of
Antipater and his sons excited the envy of the principal men among the
Jews, especially as they saw that Herod was violent and bold, and was
capable of acting tyrannically. So they accused him before Hyrcanus of
encroaching on the government, and of transgressing the laws by putting men
to death without their condemnation by the sanhedrin. Protecting Herod,
whom he loved as his own son, from the sanhedrin when they would have
sentenced him to death, Hyrcanus aided him to flee to Damascus, where he
took refuge with Sextus Cæsar. When Herod received the kingdom, he
slew all the members of that sanhedrin excepting Sameas, whom he respected
because he persuaded the people to admit Herod into the city, and he even
slew Hyrcanus also.
Now, when Cæsar was come to Rome, and was ready to sail into
Africa to fight against Scipio and Cato, Hyrcanus sent ambassadors to him,
desiring the ratification of the league of friendship between them. Not
only Cæsar but the senate heaped honours on the ambassadors, and
confirmed the understanding that subsisted. But during the disorders that
arose after the death of Cæsar, Cassius came into Syria and disturbed
Judea by exacting great sums of money. Antipater sought to gather the great
tax demanded from Judea, and was foully slain by a collector named
Malichus, on whom Herod quickly took vengeance for the murder of his
father. By his energy in obtaining the required tax, Herod gained new
favour with Cassius.

V.--The Herodian Era

In order to secure his position, Herod made an obscure priest from
Babylon, named Ananelus, high-priest in place of Hyrcanus. This offended
Alexandra, daughter of Hyrcanus and wife of Alexander, son of Aristobulus
the king. She had ten children, among whom were Mariamne, the beautiful
wife of Herod, and Aristobulus. She sent an appeal to Cleopatra, queen of
Egypt, in order by her intercession to gain from Antony the high-priesthood
for this son. At the instance of Antony, Herod took the office from
Ananelus, and gave it to Aristobulus, but took care that the youth should
soon be murdered. Then, from causeless jealousy, he put to death his uncle
Joseph and threw Mariamne into prison. Victory in a war with Arabia
enhanced his power. Cruelly slaying Hyrcanus, he hasted away to Octavian,
who had beaten Antony at Actium, and obtained also from him, the new
Cæsar, Augustus, the kingdom, thus being confirmed in his
position.
Women of the palace who hated Mariamne for her beauty, her high birth,
and her pride, falsely accused her to Herod of gross unfaithfulness. He
loved her passionately, but, giving ear to these traducers, ordered her to
be tried. She was condemned to death, and showed great fortitude as she
went to the place of execution, even though her own mother, Alexandra, in
order to make herself safe from the wrath of the king, basely, and
publicly, and violently upbraided her, while the people, pitying her,
mourned at her fate. Herod was also attacked by a tormenting distemper. He
ordered the execution of Alexandra and of several of his most intimate
friends.
By his persistent introduction of foreign customs, which corrupted the
constitution of the country, Herod incurred the deep hatred of very many
eminent citizens. He erected servile trophies to Cæsar, and prepared
costly games in which men were condemned to fight with wild beasts. Ten men
who conspired against him were betrayed, and were tortured horribly, and
then slain. But the people seized the spy who had informed against them,
tore him limb from limb, and flung the body in pieces to the dogs. By
constant and relentless severity Herod still strengthened his rule.
But now fearful disturbances arose in his family. His sister Salome and
his brother Pheroras displayed virulent hatred against Alexander and
Aristobulus, sons of the murdered Mariamne, and, on their part, the two
young men were incensed at the partiality shown by Herod to his eldest son,
Antipater. This prince was continually using cunning strategy against his
brethren, while feigning affection for them. He so worked on the mind of
the king by false accusations against Alexander that many of the friends of
this youth were tortured to death in the attempts made to force disclosures
from them.
A traitor named Eurycles fanned the flame by additional accusations, all
utterly groundless, so that Herod wrote letters to Rome concerning the
treacherous designs of his sons against him, and asking permission of
Cæsar to bring them to trial. This was granted, and they were accused
before an assembly of judges at Berytus and condemned. By their father's
command they were starved to death. For his share in bringing about this
tragedy Antipater was hated by the people. But the secret desire of this
eldest son was to see the end of his father, whom he deeply hated, though
he now governed jointly with him and was no other than a king already.
Herod by this time had nine wives and many children and grandchildren.
The latter he brought up with much care. Antipater was sent on a mission to
Rome, and during his absence his plots were discovered, and on his return,
Herod, amazed at his wickedness, condemned him to death. The king now
altered his testament, dividing the territory among several of his sons. He
died on the fifth day after the execution of Antipater, having reigned
thirty-four years after procuring the death of Antigonus. Archelaus, his
son, was appointed by Cæsar, in confirmation of Herod's will,
governor of one-half of the country; but accusation of enemies led to his
banishment to Vienna, in Gaul. Cyrenaicus, a Roman senator and magistrate,
was sent by Cæsar to make taxation in Syria and Judea, and Caponius
was made procurator of Judea. Philip, a son of Herod, built cities in
honour of Tiberius Cæsar. When Pontius Pilate became procurator he
removed the army from Cassarea to Jerusalem, abolished Jewish laws, and in
the night introduced Cæsar's effigies on ensigns.
About this time Jesus, a wise man, a doer of wonderful works, drew over
to him many Jews and Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the
suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross,
those that loved him did not forsake him, for he appeared to them again
alive at the third day, as the prophets had foretold; and the tribe of
Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. John, who was
called the Baptist, was slain by Herod the tetrarch at his castle at
Machserus, by the Dead Sea. The destruction of his army by Aretas, king of
Arabia, was ascribed by the Jews to God's anger for this crime.
Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great, became the most famous of his
descendants. On him Claudius Cæsar bestowed all the dominions of his
grandfather with the title of king. But pride overcame him. Seated on a
throne at a great festival at Cæsarea, arrayed in a magnificent robe,
he was stricken by a disease, and died.
He was succeeded by his son Agrippa, during whose time Felix and Festus
were procurators in Judea, while Nero was Roman emperor. This Agrippa
finished the Temple by the work of 18,000 men. The war of the Jews and
Romans began through the oppression by Gessius Florus, who secured the
procuratorship by the friendship of his wife Cleopatra with Poppea, wife of
Nero. Florus filled Judea with intolerable cruelties, and the war began in
the second year of his rule and the twelfth of the reign of Nero. What
happened will be known by those who peruse the books I have written about
the Jewish war.

The Wars of the Jews

Josephus, in his "Wars of the Jews," gives the only full
and reliable account of the tragic siege and destruction of Jerusalem by
the Romans under Titus. Excepting in the opening, he writes throughout in
the third person, although he was present in the Roman camp as a prisoner
during the siege, and before then had been, as governor of Galilee, the
brave and energetic antagonist of the Romans. Becoming the friend of Titus,
and despairing of the success of his compatriots, he was employed in
efforts to conciliate the leaders of the rebellion during the siege, and he
was for three years a privileged captive in the camp of the besiegers. His
recital is one of the most thrilling samples of romantic realism in the
whole range of ancient literature, and its veracity and honesty have never
been impugned. In his autobiography, Josephus tells how, after the war, he
was invited by Titus to sail with him to Rome, and how on his arrival there
the Emperor Vespasian entertained him in his own palace, bestowed on him a
pension, and conferred on him the honours of Roman citizenship. The
Emperors Titus and Domitian treated this remarkable Jew with continued
favour.

I.--Beginning of the Great Conflict

Whereas the war which the Jews made against the Romans hath been the
greatest of all times, while some men who were not concerned themselves
have written vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and while those
that were there have given false accounts, I, Joseph, the son of Matthias,
by birth a Hebrew, and a priest also, and who at first fought against the
Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, am
the author of this book.
Now, the affairs of the Romans were in great disorder after the death of
Nero. At the decease of Herod Agrippa, his son, who bore the same name, was
seventeen years old. He was considered too young to bear the burden of
royalty, and Judea relapsed into a Roman province. Cuspius Fadus was sent
as governor, and administered his office with firmness, but found civil war
disturbing the district beyond Jordan. He cleared the country of the robber
bands; and his successor, Tiberius Alexander, during a brief rule, put down
disturbances which broke out in Judea. The province was at peace till he
was superseded by Cumanus, during whose government the people and the Roman
soldiery began to show mutual animosity. In a terrible riot 20,000 people
perished, and Jerusalem was given up to wailing and lamentation.
It was in Cæsarea that the events took place which led to the
final war. This magnificent city was inhabited by two races--the Syrian
Greeks, who were heathens, and the Jews. The two parties violently
contended for the pre-eminence. The Jews were the more wealthy; but the
Roman soldiery, levied chiefly in Syria, took part with their countrymen.
Tumults and bloodshed disturbed the streets. At this time a procurator
named Gessius Florus was appointed, and he, by his barbarities, forced the
Jews to begin the war in the twelfth year of the reign of Nero and the
seventeenth of the reign of Agrippa.
But the occasion of the war was by no means proportioned to those heavy
calamities that it brought upon us. The fatal flame finally broke out from
the old feud at Cæsarea. The decree of Nero had assigned the
magistracy of that city to the Greeks. It happened that the Jews had a
synagogue, the ground around which belonged to a Greek. For this spot the
Jews offered a much higher price than it was worth. It was refused, and to
annoy them as much as possible, the owner set up some mean buildings and
shops upon it, and so made the approach to the synagogue as narrow and
difficult as possible. The more impetuous of the Jewish youth interrupted
the workmen. Then the men of greater wealth and influence, and among them
John, a publican, collected the large sum of eight talents, and sent it as
a bribe to Florus, that he might stop the building. He received the money,
made great promises, and at once departed for Sebaste from Cæsarea.
His object was to leave full scope for the riot.
On the following day, while the Jews were crowding to the synagogue, a
citizen of Cæsarea outraged them by oversetting an earthen vessel in
the way, over which he sacrificed birds, as done by the law in cleansing
lepers, and thus he implied that the Jews were a leprous people. The more
violent Jews, furious at the insult, attacked the Greeks, who were already
in arms. The Jews were worsted, took up the books of the law, and fled to
Narbata, about seven miles distant. John, the publican, and twelve men of
eminence went to Samaria to Florus, implored his aid, and reminded him of
the eight talents he had received. He threw them into prison and demanded
seventeen talents from the sacred treasury under pretence of Cæsar's
necessities. This injustice and oppression caused violent excitement in
Jerusalem when the news reached that city. The people assembled around the
Temple with the loudest outcries; but it was the purpose of Florus to drive
the people to insurrection, and he gave his soldiers orders to plunder the
upper market and to put to death all whom they met. Of men, women, and
children there fell that day 3,600.
When Agrippa attempted to persuade the people to obey Florus till
Cæsar should send someone to succeed him, the more seditious cast
reproaches on him, and got the king excluded from the city; nay, some had
the impudence to fling stones at him. At the same time they excited the
people to go to war, and some laid siege to the Roman garrison in the
Antonio; others made an assault on a certain fortress called Masada. They
took it by treachery, and slew the Romans. One, Menahem, a Galilean, became
leader of the sedition, and went to Masada and broke open Herod's armoury,
and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers, also. These
he made use of for a bodyguard, and returned in state to Jerusalem, and
gave orders to continue the siege of the Antonio.
The tower was undermined, and fell, and many soldiers were slain. Next
day the high-priest Ananias, and his brother Hezekiah, were slain by the
robbers. By these successes Menahem was puffed up and became barbarously
cruel; but he was slain, as were also the captains under him, in an attack
led on by Eleazar, a bold youth who was governor of the Temple.

II.--The Gathering of Great Storms

And now great calamities and slaughters came on the Jews. On the very
same day two dreadful massacres happened. In Jerusalem the Jews fell on
Netilius and the band of Roman soldiers whom he commanded after they had
made terms and had surrendered, and all were killed except the commander
himself, who supplicated for mercy, and even agreed to submit to
circumcision. On that very day and hour, as though Providence had ordained
it, the Greeks in Cæsarea rose, and in a single hour slew over 20,000
Jews, and so the city was emptied of its Jewish inhabitants. For Florus
caught those who escaped, and sent them to the galleys. By this tragedy the
whole nation was driven to madness. The Jews rose and laid waste the
villages all around many cities in Syria, and they descended on Gadara,
Hippo, and Gaulonitus, and burnt and destroyed many places. Sebaste and
Askelon they seized without resistance, and they razed Anthedon and Gaza to
the ground, pillaging the villages all around, with great slaughter.
When thus the disorder in all Syria had become terrible, Cestius Gallus,
the Roman commander at Antioch, marched with an army to Ptolemais and
overran all Galilee and invested Jerusalem, expecting that it would be
surrendered by means of a powerful party within the walls. But the plot was
discovered, and the conspirators were flung headlong from the walls, and an
attack by Cestius on the north side of the Temple was repulsed with great
loss. Seeing the whole country around in arms, and the Jews swarming on all
the heights, Cestius withdrew his army and retired in the night, leaving
400 of his bravest men to mount guard in the camp and to display their
ensigns, that the Jews might be deceived.
But at break of day it was discovered that the camp was deserted by the
army, and the Jews rushed to the assault and slew all the Roman band. This
happened in the twelfth year of the reign of Nero.

III.--Judea in Rebellion Against Rome

Nero was at this time in Achaia. To him, as ambassador, Cestius, sent in
order to lay the blame on Florus, Costobar and Saul, two brothers of the
Herodian family, who, with Philip, the son of Jacimus, the general of
Agrippa, had escaped from Jerusalem. Meantime, a great massacre of the Jews
took place at Damascus. Then those in Jerusalem who had pursued after
Cestius called a general assembly in the Temple, and elected their
governors and commanders. Their choice fell on Joseph, the son of Gorion,
and Ananus, the chief priest, who were invested with absolute authority in
the city; but Eleazar was passed over, for he was suspected of aiming at
kingly power, as he went about attended by a bodyguard of zealots. But as
commanding within the Temple he had made himself master of the public
treasures, and in a short time the need of money and his extreme subtlety
won over the multitude, and all real authority fell into his hands. To the
other districts they sent the men most to be trusted for courage and
fidelity.
Josephus was appointed to the command of Galilee, with particular charge
of the strong city of Gamala. He raised in that province in the north an
army of more than a hundred thousand young men, whom he armed and exercised
after the Roman manner; and he formed a council of seventy, and appointed
seven judges in each city. He sought to unite the people and to win their
goodwill. But great trouble arose from the treachery of his enemy, John of
Gischala, who surpassed all men in craft and deceit. He gathered a force of
4,000 robbers and wasted Galilee, while he inflamed the dissensions in the
cities, and sent messengers to Jerusalem accusing Josephus of tyranny.
Tiberias and several cities revolted, but Josephus suppressed the risings,
severely punishing many of the leaders. John retired to the robbers at
Masada, and took to plundering Idumsea.

IV.--Vespasian and Josephus

Nero, on learning from the messengers the state of affairs, at first
regarded the revolt lightly; but presently grew alarmed, and appointed to
the command of the armies in Syria, and the task of subduing the Jews,
Vespasian, who had pacified the West when it was disordered by the Germans,
and had also recovered Britain for the Romans. He came to Antioch in the
early spring, and was there joined by Agrippa and all his forces. He
marched to Ptolemais, where he was met by his son Titus, who had, with
expedition unusual in the winter season, sailed from Achaia to Alexandria.
So the Roman army now numbered 60,000 horsemen and footmen, besides large
numbers of camp followers who were also accustomed to military service and
could fight on occasion.
The war was now opened. Josephus attempted no resistance in the open
field, and the people had been directed to fly to the fortified cities. The
strongest of all these was Jotapata, and here Josephus commanded in person.
Being very desirous of demolishing it, Vespasian besieged it with his whole
army. It was defended with the greatest vigour, but was, after fierce
conflicts, taken in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero, on the first
day of the month Panemus (July). During this dreadful siege, and at the
capture, 40,000 men fell. The Romans sought in vain for the body of
Josephus, their stubborn enemy. He had leaped down the shaft of a dry well
leading to a long cavern. A woman betrayed the hiding-place, and Josephus
was taken and brought before the conqueror, of whom he had demanded from
his captors a private conference. To Vespasian he announced that he and his
son would speedily attain the imperial dignity. Vespasian was conciliated
by the speech of his prisoner, whom he treated with kindness; for though he
did not release him from his bonds, he bestowed on him suits of clothes and
other precious gifts.
Joppa, Tiberias, Taricheæ, and Gamala were taken, both Romans and
Jews perishing in the conflicts. Soon afterwards, by the capture of
Gischala, all Galilee was subdued, John of Gischala fleeing to
Jerusalem.

V.--The Prelude to the Great Siege

While the cities of Galilee thus arrested the course of the Roman
eagles, Jotapata and Gamala setting the example of daring resistance, the
leaders of the nation in Jerusalem, instead of sending out armies to the
relief of the besieged cities, were engaged in the most dreadful civil
conflicts.
The fame of John of Gishala had gone before him to Jerusalem, and the
multitude poured forth to do him honour. He falsely represented the Roman
forces as being very greatly weakened, and declared that their engines had
been worn out in the sieges in Galilee. He was a man of enticing eloquence,
to whom the young men eagerly gave heed. So the city now began to be
divided into hostile factions, and the whole of Judea had before set to the
people of Jerusalem the fatal example of discord. For every city was torn
to pieces by civil animosities. Not only the public councils, but even
numerous families were distracted by the peace and war dispute. Through all
Judea the youth were ardent for war, while the elders vainly endeavoured to
allay the frenzy. Bands of desperate men began to spread over the land,
plundering houses, while the Roman garrisons in the towns, rather rejoicing
in their hatred to the race than wishing to protect the sufferers, afforded
little help.
Large numbers of these evil men stole into the city and grew into a
daring faction, who robbed houses openly, and many of the most eminent
citizens were murdered by these Zealots, as they were called, from their
pretence that they had discovered a conspiracy to betray the city to the
Romans. They dismissed many of the sanhedrin from office and appointed men
of the lowest degree, who would support them in their violence, till the
leaders of the people became slaves to their will.
At length resistance was provoked, led by Ananus, oldest of the chief
priests, a man of great wisdom, and the robber Zealots took refuge in the
Temple and fortified it more strongly than before. They appointed as
high-priest one Phanias, a coarse and clownish rustic, utterly ignorant of
the sacerdotal duties, who when decked in the robes of office caused great
derision. This sport and pastime for the Zealots caused the more religious
people to shed tears of grief and shame; and the citizens, unable to endure
such insolence, rose in great numbers to avenge the outrage on the sacred
rites. Thus a fierce civil war broke out in which very many were slain.
Then John of Gischala with great treachery, outwardly siding with
Ananus, and secretly aiding the Zealots, sent messengers inviting the
Idumæans to come to his help, of whom 20,000 broke into the city
during a stormy night, and slew 8,500 of the people.

VI.--The Siege and Fall of Jerusalem

Nero died after having reigned thirteen years and eight days, and
Vespasian, being informed of the event, waited for a whole year, holding
his army together instead of proceeding against Jerusalem. Galba was made
emperor, and slain, as was also Otho, his successor; and then, after the
defeat and death of the emperor Vitellius, Vespasian was proclaimed by the
East. He had preferred to leave the Jews to waste their strength by their
internal feuds while he sent his lieutenants with forces to reduce various
surrounding districts instead of attacking Jerusalem. When he became
emperor, he released Josephus from his bonds, honouring him for his
integrity. Hastening his journey to Rome, Vespasian commanded Titus to
subdue Judea.
At Jerusalem were now three factions raging furiously. Eleazar, son of
Simon, who was the first cause of the war, by persuading the people to
reject the offerings of the emperors to the Temple, and had led the Zealots
and seized the Temple, pretended to cherish righteous wrath against John of
Gishala for the bloodshed he had occasioned. But he deserted the Zealots
and seized the inner court of the Temple, so that there was war between him
and Simon, son of Gioras. Thus Eleazar, John, and Simon each led a band in
constant fightings, and the Temple was everywhere defiled by murders.
Now, as Titus was on his march he chose out 600 select horsemen, and
went to take a view of the city, when suddenly an immense multitude burst
forth from the gate over against the monuments of Queen Helena and
intercepted him and a few others. He had on neither helmet nor breastplate,
yet though many darts were hurled at him, all missed him, as if by some
purpose of Providence, and, charging through the midst of his foes, he
escaped unhurt. Part of the army now advanced to Scopos, within a mile of
the city, while another occupied a station at the foot of the Mount of
Olives.
Seeing this gathering of the Roman forces, the factions within Jerusalem
for the first time felt the necessity for concord, as Eleazar from the
summit of the Temple, John from the porticoes of the outer court, and Simon
from the heights of Sion watched the Roman camps forming thus so near the
walls. Making terms with each other, they agreed to make an attack at the
same moment. Their followers, rushing suddenly forth along the valley of
Jehoshaphat, fell with violence on the 10th legion, encamped at the foot of
the Mount of Olives, and working there unarmed at the entrenchments. The
soldiers fell back, many being killed. Witnessing their peril, Titus, with
picked troops, fell on the flank of the Jews and drove them into the city
with great loss.
The Roman commander now carefully pushed forward his approaches,
leveling the whole plain of Scopos to the outward wall and destroying all
the beautiful gardens with their fountains and water-courses, and the army
took up a position all along the northern and the western wall, the footmen
being drawn up in seven lines, with the horsemen in three lines behind, and
the archers between. Jerusalem was fortified by three walls. These were not
one within the other, for each defended one of the quarters into which the
city was divided.
The first, or outermost, encompassed Bezetha, the next protected the
citadel of the Antonia and the northern front of the Temple, and the third,
or old, and innermost wall was that of Sion. Many towers, 35 feet high and
35 feet broad, each surmounted with lofty chambers and with great tanks for
rain water, guarded the whole circuit of the walls, 90 being in the first
wall, 14 in the second, and 60 in the third. The whole circuit of the city
was about 33 stadia (four miles). From their pent-houses of wicker the
Romans, with great toil day and night, discharged arrows and stones, which
slew many of the citizens.
At three different places the battering rams began their thundering
work, and at length a corner tower came down, yet the walls stood firm, for
there was no breach. Suddenly the besieged sallied forth and set fire to
the engines. Titus came up with his horsemen and slew twelve Jews with his
own hands. One was taken prisoner and was crucified before the walls as an
example, being the first so executed during the siege. The Jews now
retreated to the second wall, abandoning the defence of Bezetha, which the
Romans entered. Titus instantly ordered the second wall to be attacked, and
for five days the conflict raged more fiercely than ever. The Jews were
entirely reckless of their own lives, sacrificing themselves readily if
they could kill their foes. On the fifth day they retreated from the second
wall, and Titus entered that part of the lower city which was within it
with I,000 picked men.
But, being desirous of winning the people, he ordered that no houses
should be set on fire and no massacres should be committed. The seditious,
however, slew everyone who spoke of peace, and furiously assailed the
Romans. Some fought from the walls, others from the houses, and such
confusion prevailed that the Romans retired; then the Jews, elated, manned
the breach, making a wall of their own bodies.
Thus the fight continued for three days, till Titus a second time
entered the wall. He threw down all the northern part and strongly
garrisoned the towers on the south. The strong heights of Sion, the citadel
of the Antonia, and the fortified Temple still held out Titus, eager to
save so magnificent a place, resolved to refrain for a few days from the
attack, in order that the minds of the besieged might be affected by their
woes, and that the slow results of famine might operate. He reviewed his
army in full armour, and they received their pay in view of the city, the
battlements being thronged by spectators during this splendid defiling, who
looked on in terror and dismay. Then Titus sent Josephus to address them
and to persuade them to yield, but the Zealots reviled him and hurled darts
at him; but many began to desert, Titus permitted them to come in
unmolested. John and Simon in their anger watched every outlet and executed
any whom they suspected of designing to follow.
The famine increased, and the misery of the weaker was aggravated by
seeing the stronger obtaining food. All natural affection was extinguished,
husbands and wives, parents and children snatching the last morsel from
each other. Many wretched men were caught by the Romans prowling in the
ravines by night to pick up food, and these were scourged, tortured, and
crucified. In the morning sometimes 500 of these victims were seen on
crosses before the walls. This was done to terrify the rest, and it went on
till there was not wood enough for crosses. Terrible crimes were committed
in the city. The aged high-priest, Matthias, was accused of holding
communication with the enemy. Three of his sons were killed in his
presence, and he was executed in sight of the Romans, together with sixteen
other members of the sanhedrin, and the parents of Josephus were thrown
into prison. The famine grew so woeful that a woman devoured the body of
her own child. At length, after fierce fighting, the Antonia was scaled,
and Titus ordered its demolition.
Titus now promised that the Temple should be spared if the defenders
would come forth and fight in any other place, but John and the Zealots
refused to surrender it. For several days the outer cloisters and outer
court were attacked with rams, but the immense and compact stones resisted
the blows. As many soldiers were slain in seeking to storm the cloisters,
Titus ordered the gates to be set on fire. A soldier flung a blazing brand
into a gilded door on the north side of the chambers. The Jews, with cries
of grief and rage, grasped their swords and rushed to take revenge on their
enemies or perish in the ruins.
The slaughter was continued while the fire raged. Soon no part was left
but a small portion of the outer cloisters. Titus next spent eighteen days
in preparations for the attack on the upper city, which was then speedily
captured. And now the Romans were not disposed to display any mercy, night
alone putting an end to the carnage. During the whole of this siege of
Jerusalem, 1,100,000 were slain, and the prisoners numbered 97,000.

HENRY MILMAN, D.D.

History of the Jews

Henry Hart Milman, D.D., was born in London on February 10,
1791, died on September 24, 1868, and was buried in St. Paul's Cathedral,
of which for the last nineteen years of his life he was Dean. He was the
youngest son of Sir Francis Milman, physician to George III, and was
educated at Greenwich, Eton and Oxford. Although as a scholarly poet he had
a considerable reputation, his literary fame rests chiefly on his fine
historical works, of which fifteen volumes appeared, including the "History
of the Jews," the "History of Christianity to the Abolition of Paganism in
the Roman Empire," and the "History of Latin Christianity to the
Pontificate of Nicholas V." The appearance of the "History of the Jews" in
1830 caused no small consternation among the orthodox, but among the Jews
themselves it was exceptionally well received. Dean Milman wrote several
hymns, including "Ride on, ride on in majesty," "When our heads are bowed
in woe." Although this history carries the Jewish race down to modern
times, it is included in the section of THE WORLD'S GREATEST BOOKS treating
of ancient history, as it is the history of an ancient race, not of a
definite country.

I.--Dissolution of the Jewish States

By the destruction of Jerusalem and of the fortified cities of Machærus
and Masada, which had held out after it, the political existence of the
Jewish nation was annihilated; it was never again recognised as one of the
states or kingdoms of the world. We have now to trace a despised and
obscure race in almost every region of the world. We are called back,
indeed, for a short time to Palestine, to relate new scenes of revolt,
ruin, and persecution. Not long after the dissolution of the Jewish state
it revived again in appearance, under the form of two separate
communities--one under a sovereignty purely spiritual, the other partly
spiritual and partly temporal, but each, comprehending all the Jewish
families in the two great divisions of the world. At the head of the Jews
on this side of the Euphrates appeared the Patriarch of the West; the chief
of the Mesopotamian communities, assumed the striking but more temporal
title of Resch-Glutha, or Prince of the Captivity.
That Judaism should have thus survived is one of the most marvellous of
historic phenomena. But, for the most part, the populous cities beyond the
Jordan, the dominions of Agrippa, and Samaria escaped the devastation; and,
according to tradition, the sanhedrin was spared in the general wreck.
After a brief interval of peace for the Jews scattered through the world
during the reign of Nerva, their settlements in Babylonia, Egypt, Cyrene,
and Judea broke out in rebellion against the intolerant religious policy of
the otherwise sagacious and upright Trajan. Great atrocities were committed
by revolting Jews in Egypt, and the retaliation was terrible. It is said
that 220,000 Jews fell before the remorseless vengeance of their enemies.
The flame spread to Cyprus, where it was quenched by Hadrian, afterwards
emperor. He expelled the Jews from the island. When Hadrian ascended the
throne, in 117 A.D., he issued an edict which was tantamount to the total
suppression of Judaism, for it interdicted circumcision, the reading of the
law, and the observance of the Sabbath.
At this momentous juncture, when universal dismay prevailed, it was
announced that the Messiah had appeared. He had come in power and glory.
His name fulfilled the prophecy of Balaam. Barcochab, the Son of the Star,
was that star which was to "arise out of Jacob." Wonders attended on his
person; he breathed flames from his mouth which, no doubt, would burn up
the strength of the proud oppressor, and wither the armies of the
tyrannical Hadrian. Above all, Akiba, the greatest of the rabbins, the
living oracle of divine truth, espoused the claims of the new Messiah; he
was called the standard-bearer of the Son of the Star. Of him also wondrous
stories were told. The first expedition of Barcochab was to the ruins of
Jerusalem, where a rude town had sprung up. Here he openly assumed the
title of king. But he and his followers avoided a battle in the open field.
On the arrival of the famous Julius Severus to take command of the Roman
forces, the rebel Jews were in possession of fifty of the strongest castles
and nearly a thousand villages. Severus attacked the strongholds in detail,
reducing them by famine, and gradually brought the war to a close.
Over half a million Jews perished during the struggle, and the whole of
Judea was a desert in which wolves and hyenas howled through the streets of
the desolate cities. Hadrian established a new city on the site of
Jerusalem, which he called Ælia Capitolina, and peopled with a colony
of foreigners. An edict was issued prohibiting any Jew from entering the
new city on pain of death, and the more effectually to enforce the edict,
the image of a swine was placed over the gate leading to Bethlehem.

II.--Judaism and Christianity

For the fourth time the Jewish people seemed on the brink of
extermination. Nebuchadrezzar, Antiochus, Titus, and Hadrian had
successively exerted their utmost power to extinguish their existence as a
separate people. Yet in less than sixty years after the war under Hadrian,
before the close of the second century after Christ, the Jews present the
extraordinary spectacle of two separate and regularly organised
communities--one under the Patriarch of Tiberias, comprehending all of
Isrælitish descent who inhabited the Roman Empire; the other under the
Prince of the Captivity, to whom all the eastern Jews paid allegiance. By
the mild temper of Antoninus Pius, the Jews were restored to their ancient
privileges. Though still forbidden to enter Jerusalem, they were permitted
to acquire the freedom of Rome, to establish many settlements in Italy, and
to enjoy municipal honours.
This gentle treatment assuaged the stern temper of the race. Awakened
from their dream of prophecy and conquest, they assumed the behaviour of
peaceable and industrious subjects. The worship of the synagogue became the
great bond of racial union, and through centuries held the scattered nation
in the closest uniformity.
The middle of the third century beheld all Isræl incorporated into
their two communities, under their patriarch and their caliphate. The
Resch-Glutha, or Prince of the Captivity, lived in all the state and
splendour of an oriental potentate, far outshining in his pomp his rival
sovereign in Tiberias. The most celebrated of the rabbinical sovereigns was
Jehuda, sometimes called the nasi or patriarch. His life was of such
spotless purity that he was named the Holy. He was the author of a new
constitution for the Jewish people, for he embodied in the celebrated
Mischna all the authorised traditions of the schools and courts, and all
the authorised interpretations of the Mosaic law. Both in the East and the
West the Jews maintained their seclusion from the rest of the world. The
great work called the Talmud, formed of the Mischna and the Gemara (or
compilation of comments), was composed during a period of thirty years of
profound peace for the masters of the Babylonian schools, under Persian
rule. This remains a monumental token of learning and industry of the
eastern Jewish rabbins of the third and fourth centuries.
The formal establishment of Christianity by Constantine the Great, in
the early part of the fourth century, might have led to Jewish apprehension
lest the Synagogue should be eclipsed by the splendour of its triumphant
rival, the Christian Church; but the Rabbinical authority had raised an
insurmountable barrier around the Synagogue. And, unhappily, the Church had
lost its most effective means of conversion--its miraculous powers, its
simple doctrine, and the blameless lives of its believers. Constantine
enacted severe laws against the Jews, which seem in great part to have been
occasioned by their own fiery zeal. But, still earlier than these
enactments, Spain had given the signal for hostility towards the Jews. A
decree was passed at the Council of Elvira prohibiting Jewish and Christian
farmers and peasants from mingling together at harvest home and other
festivals.
In Egypt, during the reign of Constantius, who succeeded his father
Constantine, the hot-headed Jews of Alexandria provoked the enactment by
that emperor of yet severer laws, by mingling themselves in the factions of
Arians and Athanasians, which distracted that restless city. They joined
with the pagans on the side of the Arian bishop, and committed frightful
excesses. An insurrection in Judea, which terminated in the destruction of
Dio Cæsarea, gave further pretext for exaction and oppression. But
the apostasy of the emperor for a time revived the hopes of the race,
especially when he issued his memorable edict decreeing the rebuilding of
the Temple on Mount Moriah, and the restoration of the Jewish worship in
its original splendour.
The whole Jewish world was now in commotion. Julian entrusted the
execution of the project to his favourite, Alypius, while he advanced with
his ill-fated army to the East. The Jews crowded from the most distant
quarters to assist in the work. But terrible disappointment ensued. Fire
destroyed the work, and various catastrophes frustrated the enterprise, and
the death of Julian rendered it hopeless.
The irruption of the Northern Barbarians during the latter half of the
fourth to about the end of the fifth century so completely disorganised the
whole frame of society that the condition of its humblest members could not
but be powerfully influenced thereby. The Jews were widely dispersed in all
those countries on which the storm fell--in Belgium, the Rhine districts,
Germany, where it was civilised, Gaul, Italy, and Spain. Not only did the
Jews in their scattered colonies engage actively in mercantile pursuits,
but one great branch of commerce fell chiefly into their hands--the
internal slave-trade of Europe.
The Church beheld this evil with grief and indignation, and popes issued
rescripts and interdicts. Fierce hostility grew up between Church and
Synagogue. The Church had not then the power--it may be hoped it had not
the will--to persecute. It was fully occupied with the task of seeking to
impart to the fierce conquerors--the Vandals; Goths, and other
Barbarians--the humanising and civilising knowledge of Christianity.
A great enemy arose in the person of the Emperor Justinian, who was
provoked by savage conflicts between the Jews and the Samaritans to issue
severe enactments against both, which led to the fall of the patriarchate.
In the East, under the rule during the same period of the Persian king,
Chosroes the Just, or Nushirvan, who began his reign in 531 A.D., the
position was not more favourable for the Jews of Babylonia.

III.--The Golden Age of Judaism

During the conflict between Persian and Roman emperors a power was
rapidly growing up in the secret deserts of Arabia which was to erect its
throne on the ruins of both. The Jews were the first opponents and the
first victims of Mohammed. At least a hundred and twenty years before
Christ, Jewish settlers had built castles in Sabæa and established an
independent kingdom, known as Homeritis, which was subdued by an Arab
chieftain and came to an end. But the Jews were still powerful in the
Arabian peninsula. Mohammed designed to range all the tribes under his
banner; but his overtures were scorned, and he ordered a massacre of all
who refused to accept the Koran.
On one day 700 Jews were slain in Medina while the Prophet looked on
without emotion. But the persecution of the Jews by the Mohammedans was
confined to Arabia, for under the empire of the caliphs they suffered no
further oppression than the payment of tribute. Spain had maintained its
odious distinction in the West, and it is not surprising that the suffering
Jews by active intrigue materially assisted the triumphant invasion of the
country by the Saracens. And in France the Jews became numerous and
wealthy, and traded with great success.
We enter on a period which may be described as the Golden Age of the
modern Jews. The religious persecutions of this race by the Mohammedans
were confined within the borders of Arabia. The Prophet was content with
enforcing uniformity of worship within the sacred peninsula which gave him
birth. The holy cities of Medina and Mecca were not to be profaned by the
unclean footstep of the unbeliever. His immediate successors rose from
stern fanatics to ambitious conquerors. Whoever would submit to the
dominion of the caliph might easily evade the recognition of the Prophet's
title. The Jews had reason to rejoice in the change of masters. An Islamite
sovereign would not be more oppressive than a Byzantine on the throne of
Constantinople or a Persian on the throne of Ctesiphon. In every respect
the Jew rose in the social scale under his Mohammedan rulers. Provided he
demeaned himself peaceably, and paid his tribute, he might go to the
synagogue rather than to the mosque.
In the time of Omar, the second caliph, the coinage, already a trust of
great importance, had been committed to the care of a Jew. And the Jews
acted as intermediate agents in the interworking of European civilisation,
its knowledge, arts, and sciences, into the oriental mind, and in raising
the barbarian conquerors from the chieftains of wild, marauding tribes into
magnificent and enlightened sovereigns. The caliph readily acknowledged as
his vassal the Prince of the Captivity, who maintained his state as
representative of the Jewish community. And in the West, during the reigns
of Pepin and Charlemagne, the treatment of Jews became much more liberal
than before. Their superior intelligence and education, in a period when
nobles and kings, and even the clergy, could not always write their names,
pointed them out for offices of trust. They were the physicians, the
ministers of finance, to monarchs. They even became ambassadors. The Golden
Age of the Jews endured in increasing prosperity during the reign of Louis
the Débonnaire, or the Pious, at whose court they were so powerful
that their interest was solicited by the presents of kings. In the reign of
Charles the Bald, the Jews maintained their high estate, but dark signs of
the approaching Age of Iron began to lower around.

IV.--The Iron Age of Judaism

Our Iron Age commences in the East, where it witnessed the extinction of
the Princes of the Captivity by the ignominious death of the last
sovereign, the downfall of the schools, and the dispersion of the
community, which from that period remained an abject and degraded part of
the population. During the ninth and tenth centuries the Caliphate fell
into weakness and confusion, and split up into several kingdoms under
conflicting sovereigns, and at the same time Judaism in the East was
distracted by continual disputes between the Princes of the Captivity and
the masters of the schools. The tribunals of the civil and temporal powers
of the Eastern Jewish community were in perpetual collision, so that this
singular state was weakened internally by its own dissensions.
When a violent and rapacious caliph, Ahmed Kader, ascended the throne,
he cast a jealous look on the powers of his vassal sovereign, and, without
pretext, he seized Scherira, the prince of the community, now a hundred
years old, imprisoned him and his son Hai, and confiscated their wealth.
Hai escaped to resume his office and to transmit its honours and its
dangers to Hezekiah, who was elected chief of the community, but after a
reign of two years was arrested with all his family by order of the caliph
Abdallah Kaim ben Marillah (A.D. 1036). The schools were closed. Many of
the learned fled to Spain, where the revulsion under the Almohades had not
yet taken place; all were dispersed. Among the rest two of the sons of the
unfortunate Prince of the Captivity effected their escape to Spain, while
the last of the House of David who reigned over the Jews of the Dispersion
in Babylonia perished on the scaffold.
The Jewish communities in Palestine suffered a slower but more complete
dissolution. Benjamin of Tudela in the compilation of his travels in the
twelfth century gives a humiliating account of the few brethren who still
clung, in dire poverty and meanness, to their native land. In Tyre he found
400 Jews, mostly glass-blowers. There were in Jerusalem only 200, almost
all dyers of wool. Ascalon contained 153 Jews; Tiberias, the seat of
learning, and of the kingly patriarchate, but fifty. In the Byzantine
Empire the number of Jews had greatly diminished.
We pursue our dark progress to the West, where we find all orders
gradually arrayed in fierce and implacable animosity against the race of
Isræl. Every passion was in arms against them. In that singular structure,
the feudal system, which rose like a pyramid from the villeins, or slaves
attached to the soil, to the monarch who crowned the edifice, the, Jews
alone found no proper place. In France and England they were the actual
property of the king, and there was nowhere any tribunal to which they
could appeal.
The Jew, often acquiring wealth in commerce, might become valuable
property of some feudatory lord. He was granted away, he was named in a
marriage settlement, he was pawned, he was sold, he was stolen. Even
Churchmen of the highest rank did not disdain such lucrative property.
Louis, King of Provence, granted to the Archbishop of Aries all the
possessions which his predecessors have held of former kings, including the
Jews. Philip the Fair bought of his brother, Charles of Valois, all the
Jews of his dominions and lordships.
The Jew, making money as he knew how to do by trade and industry, was a
valuable source of revenue, and was tolerated only as such, but he was a
valuable possession. Chivalry, the parent of so much good and evil, was a
source of unmitigated wretchedness to the Jew--for religious fanaticism and
chivalry were inseparable, the knight of the Middle Ages being bound with
his good sword to extirpate all the enemies of Christ and His Virgin
Mother. The power of the clergy tended greatly to increase this general
detestation against the unhappy Jew. And when undisciplined fanatics of the
lowest order, under the guidance of Peter the Hermit and Walter the
Penniless, were fired with the spirit of the Crusades, fearful massacres of
Jews were perpetrated in Treves, Metz, Spiers, Worms, and Cologne.
Everywhere the tracks of the Crusaders were deeply marked with Jewish
blood.
Half a century after the shocking massacres of Jews during the First
Crusade, another storm gathered, as the monk Rodolph passed through Germany
preaching the duty of wreaking vengeance on all the enemies of God. The
terrible cry of "Hep!"--the signal for the massacre of Isrælites--ran
through the cities of the Rhine. Countless atrocities took place as the
Crusaders passed on, as the Jews record with triumph, to perish by plague,
famine, and the sword.

V.--The Jews in England

In the Dark Ages England was not advanced beyond the other nations of
Europe in the civil or religious wisdom of toleration. There were Jews in
England under the Saxons. And during the days of the Norman kings they were
established in Oxford and in London. They taught Hebrew to Christian as
well as to Jewish students. But they increased in both wealth and
unpopularity, false tales about atrocities committed by them being bruited
abroad. In many towns furious rabbles at different times attacked the
Jewish quarters, burnt the dwellings, and put the inmates cruelly to death,
as at York, where hundreds perished during a riot in the reign of Richard
I. King John by cruel measures extorted large sums from wealthy Jews.
The Church was also their implacable enemy, securing many repressive
enactments against them. Jewish history has a melancholy
sameness--perpetual exactions, the means of enforcing them differing only
in their cruelty. When parliament refused to maintain the extravagant royal
expenditure, nothing remained but still further to drain Hebrew veins. In
the reign of Henry III. a tale was spread of the crucifixion of a Christian
child, called Hugh of Lincoln. The story refutes itself, but it created
horror throughout the country. For this crime eighteen of the richest Jews
of Lincoln were hanged, and many more flung into dungeons.
The death of Henry brought no respite, for Edward acted with equal
harshness. At length he issued the famous irrevocable edict of total
expulsion from the realm. Their departure was fixed for October 10, 1290.
All who delayed were to be hanged without mercy. The Jews were pursued
from, the kingdom with every mark of popular triumph in their sufferings.
In one day 16,511 were exiled; all their property, debts, obligations,
mortgages were escheated to the king. A like expulsion had been effected in
France; and Spain, where the Jews were of a far nobler rank, was not to be
outdone in bigotry.
During the reign of John I., in 1388 A.D., a fierce popular preacher of
Seville, Ferdinand Martinez, Arch-deacon of Ecija, excited the populace to
excesses against the Jews. The streets of the noble city ran with blood,
and 4,000 victims perished. The cruel spirit spread through the kingdom,
and appalling massacres followed in many cities. A series of intermittent
persecutions followed both in Spain and Portugal, in reign after reign.
Jews and Protestants together went through awful ordeals at the hands of
the Inquisition. When her glory had declined, Spain, even in her lowest
decrepitude, indulged in what might seem the luxury of persecution.
It was in the reign of Charles II. that the Jews found opportunity to
steal insensibly back into England. Cromwell had felt very favourably
disposed towards them, but had not dared to permit the re-establishment
which they had openly sought. But the necessities of Charles and his
courtiers quietly accomplished the, change, and the race has ever since
maintained its footing, and no doubt contributed a fair share to the
national wealth. Russia throughout her history adhered to her hostility to
the Jews, but expulsion became impossible with such vast numbers. It is
estimated that Russia contains half the Jewish population of the world,
notwithstanding that Russia proper from ancient times has been sternly
inhospitable to the Jewish race, while Poland has ever been hospitable.
The most important measures of amelioration in the lot of the Jews in
England were passed in 1723, when they acquired the right to possess land;
in 1753, when parliament enacted the Naturalisation Bill; in 1830, when
they were admitted to civic corporations; in 1833, when they were admitted
to the profession of advocates; in 1845, when they were rendered eligible
for the office of alderman and lord mayor; and in 1858, when the last and
crowning triumph of the principle was achieved by the admission of Jews
into parliament.
In Asia, the Jews are still found in considerable numbers on the verge
of the continent; in China, they are now found in one city alone, and
possess only one synagogue. In Mesopotamia and Assyria the ancient seats of
the Babylonian Jews are still occupied by 5,270 families. But England and
Anglo-Saxon countries generally have been the most favourable to the race.
Perhaps the most remarkable fact in the history of modern Judaism is the
extension of the Jews in the United States. Writing in 1829, I stated, on
the best authority then attainable, their numbers at 6,000. They are now
[in 1863] reckoned at 75,000.

HERODOTUS

History

The "Father of History," as Herodotus has been styled, was
born at Halicarnassus, the centre of a Greek colony in Asia Minor, between
the years 490 and 480 B.C., and lived probably to sixty, dying about the
year 425 B.C. A great part of his life was occupied with travels and
investigations in those lands with which his history is mainly concerned.
His work is the earliest essay in history in a European language. It is a
record primarily of the causes and the course of the first great contest
between East and West; and is a storehouse of curious and delightful
traveller's gossip as well as a faithful record of events. The canons of
evidence in his day were defective, for obvious reasons; a miscellaneous
divine interposition in human affairs was taken for granted, and science
had not yet reduced incredible marvels to ordinary natural phenomena.
Nevertheless, Herodotus was a shrewd and careful critic, honest, and by no
means remarkably credulous. If he had not acquired the conception of
history as an exact science, he made it a particularly attractive form of
literature, to which his simplicity of style gives a slight but pleasant
archaic flavour. This epitome has been specially prepared far THE WORLD'S
GREATEST BOOKS from the Greek text.

I.--The Rise of Persian Power

I will not dispute whether those ancient tales be true, of Io and Helen,
and the like, which one or another have called the sources of the war
between the Hellenes and the barbarians of Asia; but I will begin with
those wrongs whereof I myself have knowledge. In the days of Sadyattes,
king of Lydia, and his son Alyattes, there was war between Lydia and
Miletus. And Croesus, the son of Alyattes, made himself master of the lands
which are bounded by the river Halys, and he waxed in power and wealth, so
that there was none like to him. To him came Solon, the Athenian, but would
not hail him as the happiest of all men, saying that none may be called
happy until his life's end.
Thereafter trouble fell upon Croesus by the slaying of his son when he
was a-hunting. Then Cyrus the Persian rose up and made himself master of
the Medes and Persians, and Croesus, fearing his power, was fain to go up
against him, being deceived by an oracle; but first he sought to make
alliance with the chief of the states of Hellas. In those days, Pisistratus
was despot of Athens; but Sparta was mighty, by the laws of Lycurgus.
Therefore Croesus sent envoys to the Spartans to make alliance with them,
which was done very willingly. But when Croesus went up against Cyrus, his
army was put to flight, and Cyrus besieged him in the city of Sardis, and
took it, and made himself lord of Lydia. He would have slain Croesus, but,
finding him wise and pious, he made him his counsellor.
Now, this Cyrus had before overthrown the Median king, Astyages, whose
daughter was his own mother. For her father, fearing a dream, wedded her to
a Persian, and when she bore a child, he gave order for its slaying. But
the babe was taken away and brought up by a herdsman of the hill-folk. But
in course of time the truth became known to Astyages, and to Harpagus, the
officer who had been bidden to slay the babe, and to Cyrus himself. Then
Harpagus, fearing the wrath of Astyages, bade Cyrus gather together the
Persians--who in those days were a hardy people of the mountains--and made
himself king over the Medians; which things Cyrus did, overthrowing his
grandfather Astyages. And in this wise began the dominion of the
Persians.
The Ionian cities of Asia were zealous to make alliance with Cyrus when
he had overthrown Croesus. But he held them of little account, and
threatened them, and the Lacedæmonians also, who sent him messengers
warning him to let the Ionians alone. And he sent Harpagus against the
cities of the Ionians, of whom certain Phocæans and Teians sailed
away to Rhegium and Abdera rather than become the slaves of the barbarians;
but the rest, though they fought valiantly enough, were brought to
submission by Harpagus.
While Harpagus was completing the subjugation of the West, Cyrus was
making conquest of Upper Asia, and overthrew the kingdom of Assyria, of
which the chief city was Babylon, a very wonderful city, wherein there had
ruled two famous queens, Semiramis and Nitocris. Now, this queen had made
the city wondrous strong by the craft of engineers, yet Cyrus took it by a
shrewd device, drawing off the water of the river so as to gain a passage.
Thus Babylon also fell under the sway of the Persian. But when Cyrus would
have made war upon Tomyris, the queen of the Massagetæ, who dwelt to
the eastward, there was a very great battle, and Cyrus himself was slain
and the most part of his host. And Cambyses, his son, reigned in his
stead.

II.--Wars of Egypt and Persia

Cambyses set out to conquer Egypt, taking in his army certain of the
Greeks. But of all that I shall tell about that land, the most was told to
me by the priests whom I myself visited at Memphis and Thebes and
Heliopolis. They account themselves the most ancient of peoples. If the
Ionians are right, who reckon that Egypt is only the Nile Delta, this could
not be. But I reckon that the whole Egyptian territory is. Egypt, from the
cataracts and Elephantiné down to the sea, parted into the Asiatic
part and the Libyan part by the Nile.
For the causes of the rising and falling of the Nile, the reasons that
men give are of no account. And of the sources whence the river springs are
strange stories told of which I say not whether they be true or false: but
the course of it is known for four months' journey by land and water, and
in my opinion it is a river comparable to the Ister.
The priests tell that the first ruler of Egypt was Menes, and after him
were three hundred and thirty kings, counting one queen, who was called
Nitocris. After them came Sesostris, who carried his conquest as far as the
Thracians and Scythians; and later was Rhampsinitus, who married his
daughter to the clever thief who robbed his treasure-house; and after him
Cheops, who built the pyramid, drawing the stones from the Arabian mountain
down to the Nile. Chephren also, and Mycerinus built pyramids, and the
Greeks have a story--which is not true--that another was built by Rhodopis.
And in the reign of Sethon, Egypt was invaded by Sennacherib the Assyrian,
whose army's bowstrings were eaten by field-mice.
A thing more wonderful than the pyramids is the labyrinth near Lake
Moeris, and still more wonderful is Lake Moeris itself, all which were made
by the twelve kings who ruled at once after Sethon. And after them,
Psammetichus made himself the monarch; and after him his great grandson
Apries prospered greatly, till he was overthrown by Amasis. And Amasis also
prospered, and showed favour to the Greeks. But for whatever reason, in his
day Cambyses made his expedition against Egypt, invading it just when
Amasis had died, and his son Psammenitus was reigning.
Cambyses put the Egyptian army to rout in a great battle, and conquered
the country, making Psammenitus prisoner. Yet he would have set him up as
governor of the province, according to the Persian custom, but that
Psammenitus was stirred up to revolt, and, being discovered, was put to
death. Thereafter Cambyses would have made war upon Carthage, but that the
Phoenicians would not aid him; and against the Ethiopians, who are called
"long-lived," but his army could get no food; and against the Ammonians,
but the troops that went were seen no more.
Now, madness came upon Cambyses, and he died, having committed many
crimes, among which was the slaying of his brother Smerdis. And there rose
up one among the Magi who pretended to be Smerdis, and was proclaimed king.
But this false Smerdis was one whose ears had been cut off, and he was thus
found out by one of his wives, the daughter of a Persian nobleman, Otanes.
Then seven nobles conspired together, since they would not be ruled over by
one of the Magi; and having determined that it was best to have one man for
ruler, rather than the rule of the people or of the nobles, they slew
Smerdis and made Darius, the son of Hystaspes, their king.
Then Darius divided the Persian empire into twenty satrapies, whereof
each one paid its own tribute, save Persia itself, and he was lord of all
Asia, and Egypt also.
In the days of Cambyses, Polycrates was despot of Samos, being the first
who ever thought to make himself a ruler of the seas. And he had prospered
marvellously. But Oroetes, the satrap of Sardis, compassed his death by
foul treachery, and wrought many other crimes; whom Darius in turn put to
death by guile, fearing to make open war upon him. And not long afterwards,
he sent Otanes to make conquest of Samos. And during the same days there
was a revolt of the Babylonians; and Darius went up against Babylon, yet
for twenty months he could not take it. Howbeit, it was taken by the act of
Zopyrus, who, having mutilated himself, went to the Babylonians and told
them that Darius had thus evilly entreated him, and so winning their trust,
he made easy entry for the Persian army, and so Babylon was taken the
second time.

III.--Persian Arms in Europe

Now, Darius was minded to make conquest of the Scythians--concerning
which people, and the lands beyond those which they inhabit, there are many
marvels told, as of a bald-headed folk called Argippæi; and the
Arimaspians or one-eyed people; and the Hyperborean land where the air is
full of feathers. Of these lands are legends only; nothing is known. But
concerning the earth's surface, this much is known, that Libya is
surrounded by water, certain Phoenicians having sailed round it. And of the
unknown regions of Asia much was searched out by order of Darius.
The Scythians themselves have no cities; but there are great rivers in
Scythia, whereof the Ister is the greatest of all known streams, being
greater even than the Nile, if we reckon its tributaries. The great god of
the Scythians is Ares; and their war customs are savage exceedingly, and
all their ways barbarous. Against this folk Darius resolved to march.
His plan was to convey his army across the Bosphorus on a bridge of
boats, while the Ionian fleet should sail up to the Ister and bridge that,
and await him. So he crossed the Bosphorus and marched through Thrace,
subduing on his way the Getse, who believe that there is no true death. But
when he passed the Ister, he would have taken the Ionians along with him;
but by counsel of Coes of Mitylene, he resolved to leave them in charge of
the bridge, giving order that, after sixty days, they might depart home,
but no sooner.
Then the Scythians, fearing that they could not match the great king's
army, summoned the other barbaric peoples to their aid; among whom were the
Sauromatians, who are fabled to be the offspring of the Amazons. And some
were willing, but others not. Therefore the Scythians retired before
Darius, first towards those peoples who would not come to their help; and
so enticed him into desert regions, yet would in no wise come to battle
with him.
Now, at length, Darius found himself in so evil a plight that he began
to march back to the Ister. And certain Scythians came to the Ionians, and
counselled them to destroy the bridge, the sixty days being passed. And
this Miltiades, the Athenian despot of the Chersonese, would have had them
do, so that Darius might perish with all his army; but Histiæus of Miletus
dissuaded them, because the rule of the despots was upheld by Darius. And
thus the Persian army was saved, Megabazus being left in Europe to subdue
the Hellespontines. When Megabazus had subdued many of the Thracian
peoples, who, indeed, lack only union with each other to make them the
mightiest of all nations, he sent an embassy to Amyntas, the king of
Macedon, to demand earth and water. But because those envoys insulted the
ladies of the court, Alexander, the son of Amyntas, slew them all, and of
them or all their train was never aught heard more.
Now Darius, with fair words, bade Histiseus of Miletus abide with him at
the royal town of Susa. Then Aristagoras, the brother of Histiæus, having
failed in an attempt to subdue Naxos, and fearing both Artaphernes, the
satrap of Sardis, and the Persian general Megabazus, with whom he had
quarrelled, sought to stir up a revolt of the Ionian cities; being incited
thereto by secret messages from Histiseus.
To this end, he sought alliance with the Lacedæmonians; but they
would have nothing to do with him, deeming the venture too remote. Then he
went to Athens, whence the sons of Pisistratus had been driven forth just
before. For Hipparchus had been slain by Harmodius and Aristogiton, and
afterwards Hippias would hardly have been expelled but that his enemies
captured his children and so could make with him what terms they chose. But
the Pisistratidse having been expelled, the city grew in might, and changes
were made in the government of it by Cleisthenes the Alcmæonid. But
the party that was against Cleisthenes got aid from Cleomenes of Sparta;
yet the party of Cleisthenes won.
Then, since they reckoned that there would be war with Sparta, the
Athenians had sought friendship with Artaphernes at Sardis; but since he
demanded earth and water they broke off. But because Athens was waxing in
strength, the Spartans bethought them of restoring the despotism of the
Pisistratidæ. But Sosicles, the Corinthian, dissuaded the allies of
Sparta from taking part in so evil a deed. Then Hippias sought to stir up
against the Athenians the ill-will of Artaphernes, who bade them take back
the Pisistratidæ, which they would not do.
Therefore, when Aristagoras came thither, the Athenians were readily
persuaded to promise him aid. And he, having gathered the troops of the
Ionians, who were at one with him, marched with them and the Athenians
against Sardis and took the city, which by a chance was set on fire. But
after that the Athenians refused further help to the Ionians, who were
worsted by the Persians. But the ruin of the Ionians was at the sea-fight
of Lade, where the men of Chios fought stoutly; but they of Samos and
Lesbos deserting, there was a great rout.

IV.--Marathon and Thermopylæ

Thereafter King Darius, being very wroth with the Athenians for their
share in the burning of Sardis, sent a great army across the Hellespont to
march through Thrace against Athens, under his young kinsman Mardonius. But
disaster befell these at the hands of the Thracians, and the fleet that was
to aid them was shattered in a storm; so that they returned to Asia without
honour. Then Darius sent envoys to demand earth and water from the Greek
states; and of the islanders the most gave them, and some also of the
cities on the mainland; and among these were the Aeginetans, who were at
feud with Athens.
But of those who would not give the earth and water were the Eretrians
of Eubcea. So Darius sent a great armament by sea against Eretria and
Athens, led by Datis and Artaphernes, which sailed first against Eretria.
The Athenians, indeed, sent aid; but when they found that the counsels of
the Eretrians were divided, so that no firm stand might be made, they
withdrew. Nevertheless, the Eretrians fought valiantly behind their walls,
till they were betrayed on the seventh day. But the Persians, counselled by
Hippias, sailed to the bay of Marathon.
Then the Athenians sent the strong runner Pheidippides to call upon the
Spartans for aid; who promised it, yet for sacred reasons would not move
until the full moon. So the Athenian host had none to aid them save the
loyal Platæans, valiant though few. Yet in the council of their
generals the word of Miltiades was given for battle, whereto the rest
consented. Then the Athenians and Platæans, being drawn up in a long
line, charged across the plain nigh a mile, running upon the masses of the
Persians; and, breaking them upon the wings, turned and routed the centre
also after long fighting, and drove them down to the ships, slaying as they
went; and of the ships they took seven. And of the barbarians there fell
6,400 men, and of the Athenians, 192. But as for the story that the
Alcmæonidæ hoisted a friendly signal to the Persians, I credit it not at
all.
Now, Darius was very wroth with the Greeks when he heard of these
things, and made preparation for a mighty armament to overthrow the Greeks,
and also the Egyptians, who revolted soon afterwards. But he died before he
was ready, and Xerxes, his son, reigned in his stead. Then, having first
crushed the Egyptians, he, being ruled by Mardonius, gathered a council and
declared his intent of marching against the Hellenes; which resolution was
commended by Mardonius, but Artabanus, the king's uncle, spoke wise words
of warning. Then Xerxes would have changed his mind, but for a dream which
came to him twice, and to Artabanus also, threatening disaster if he ceased
from his project; so that Artabanus was won over to favour it.
Then Xerxes made vast provision for his invasion for the building of a
bridge over the Hellespont, and the cutting of a canal through the
peninsula of Athos, where the fleet of Mardonius had been shattered. And
from all parts of his huge empire he mustered his hosts first in
Cappadocia, and marched thence by way of Sardis to the Hellespont. And
because, when the bridge was a building, a great storm wrecked it, he bade
flog the naughty waves of the sea. Then, the bridge being finished, he
passed over with his host, which took seven days to accomplish.
And when they were come to Doriscus he numbered them, and found them to
be 1,700,000 men, besides his fleets. And in the fleet were 1,207 great
ships, manned chiefly by the Phoenicians and the Greeks of Asia, having
also Persian and Scythian fighting men on board. But when Demaratus, an
exiled king of Sparta, warned Xerxes of the valour of all the Greeks, but
chiefly of the Spartans, who would give battle, however few they might be,
against any foe, however many, his words seemed to Xerxes a jest, seeing
how huge his own army was.
Now, Xerxes had sent to many of the Greek states heralds to demand earth
and water, which many had given; but to Athens and Sparta he had not sent,
because there the heralds of his father Darius had been evilly entreated.
And if it had not been for the resolution of the Athenians at this time,
all Hellas would have been forced to submit to the Great King; for they, in
despite of threatening oracles, held fast to their defiance, being urged
thereto by Themistocles, who showed them how those oracles must mean that,
although they would suffer evil things, they would be victorious by means
of wooden bulwarks, which is to say, ships; and thus they were encouraged
to rely upon building and manning a mighty fleet. And all the other cities
of Greece resolved to stand by them, except the Argives, who would not
submit to the leadership of the Spartans. And in like manner Gelon, the
despot of Syracuse in Sicily, would not send aid unless he were accepted as
leader. Nor were the men of Thessaly willing to join, since the other
Greeks could not help them to guard Thessaly itself, as the pass of Tempe
could be turned.
Therefore the Greeks resolved to make their stand at Thermopylæ on
land, and at the strait of Artemisium by sea. But at the strong pass of
Thermopylæ only a small force was gathered to hold the barbarians in
check, there being of the Spartans themselves only 300, commanded by the
king Leonidas. And when the Persians had come thither and sought to storm
the pass, they were beaten back with ease, until a track was found by which
they might take the defenders in the rear. Then Leonidas bade the rest of
the army depart except his Spartans. But the Thespians also would not go;
and then those Spartans and Thespians went out into the open and died
gloriously.

V.--Destruction of the Persian Hosts

During these same days the Greek fleet at Artemisium fought three
several engagements with the Persian fleet, in which neither side had much
the better. And thereafter the Greek fleet withdrew, but was persuaded to
remain undispersed in the bay of Salamis. The Peloponnesians were no longer
minded to attempt the defence of Attica, but to fortify their isthmus, so
that the Athenians had no choice but either to submit or to evacuate
Athens, removing their families and their goods to Troezen or Aegina or
Salamis. In the fleet, their contingent was by far the largest and best,
but the commanding admiral was the Spartan Eurybiades. Then the Persians,
passing through Boeotia, but, being dispersed before Delphi by thunderbolts
and other portents, took possession of Athens, after a fierce fight with
the garrison in the Acropolis.
Then the rest of the Greek fleet was fain to withdraw from Salamis, and
look to the safety of the Peloponnese only. But Themistocles warned them
that if they did so, the Athenians would leave them and sail to new lands
and make themselves a new Athens; and thus the fleet was persuaded to hold
together at Salamis. Yet he did not trust only to their goodwill, but sent
a messenger to the Persian fleet that the way of retreat might be
intercepted. For the Persian fleet had gathered at Phalerum, and now looked
to overwhelm the Grecian fleet altogether, despite the council of Queen
Artemisia of Halicarnassus, who would have had them not fight by sea at
all. When Aristides, called the Just, the great rival of Themistocles, came
to the Greeks with the news that their retreat by sea was cut off, then
they were no longer divided, but resolved to fight it out.
In the battle, the Aeginetans and the Athenians did the best of all the
Greeks, and Themistocles best among the commanders; nor was ever any fleet
more utterly put to rout than that of the Persians, among whom Queen
Artemisia won praise unmerited. As for King Xerxes, panic seized him when
he saw the disaster to his fleet, and he made haste to flee. He consented,
however, to leave Mardonius behind with 300,000 troops in Thessaly, he
being still assured that he could crush the Greeks. And it was well for him
that Themistocles was over-ruled in his desire to pursue and annihilate the
fleet, then sail to the Hellespont and destroy the bridge.
When the winter and spring were passed, Mardonius marched from Thessaly
and again occupied Athens, which the Athenians had again evacuated, the
Spartans having failed to send succour. But when at length the
Lacedæmonians, fearing to lose the Athenian fleet, sent forth an
army, the Persians fell back to Boeotia. So the Greek hosts gathered near
Platæa to the number of 108,000 men, but the troops of Mardonius were
about 350,000. Yet, by reason of doubtful auguries, both armies held back,
till Mardonius resolved to attack, whereof warning was brought to the
Athenians by Alexander of Macedon. But when the Spartan Pausanias, the
general of the Greeks, heard of this, he did what caused no little wonder,
for he proposed that the Athenians instead of the Lacedæmonians
should face the picked troops of the Persians, as having fought them at
Marathon. But Mardonius, seeing them move, moved his picked troops also.
Then Mardonius sent some light horse against the Greeks by a fountain
whence flowed the water for the army; which, becoming choked, it was
needful to move to a new position. But the move being made by night, most
of the allies withdrew into the town. But the Spartans, and Tegeans and
Athenians, perceiving this, held each their ground till dawn.
Now, in the morning the picked Persian troops fell on the Spartans, and
their Grecian allies attacked the Athenians. But, Mardonius being slain,
the Persians fled to their camp, which was stormed by the Spartans and
Tegeans, and the Athenians, who also had routed their foes; and there the
barbarians were slaughtered, so that of 300,000 men not 3,000 were left
alive. But Artabazus, who, before the battle, had withdrawn with 40,000
men, escaped by forced marches to the Hellespont.
And on that same day was fought another fight by sea at Mycale in Ionia,
where also the barbarians were utterly routed, for the fleet had sailed
thither. And thence the Greeks sailed to Sestos, captured the place, and so
went home.

THUCYDIDES

The Peloponnesian War

The Athenian historian, Thucydides, was born about 471
B.C., within ten years of the great repulse of the Persian invasion. Before
he was thirty, the great political ascendancy of Pericles was completely
established at Athens, and the ascendancy of Athens among the Greek states
was unchallenged, except by Sparta. He was forty at the beginning of the
Peloponnesian War. Thucydides was appointed to a military command seven
years later, but his failure in that office caused his banishment. From
that time he remained an exiled spectator of events; the date of his death
is uncertain. His great work is the history of the Peloponnesian War to its
twentieth year, where his history is abruptly broken off. To Herodotus,
history presented itself as a drama; Thucydides views it with the eyes of a
philosophical statesman, but writes it also with extraordinary descriptive
power, not only in pregnant sentences which have never been effectively
rendered in translation, but in passages of sustained intensity, of which
it would be vain to reproduce fragments. The abridged translation given
here has been made direct from the Greek.

I.--The Beginning of the War

I have written the account of the war between Athens and Sparta, since
it is the greatest and the most calamitous of all wars hitherto to the
Greeks. For the contest with the Medes was decided in four battles; but
this war was protracted over many years, and wrought infinite injury and
bloodshed.
Of the immediate causes of the war the first is to be found in the
affairs of Epidamnus, Corcyra, and Corinth, of which Corcyra was a colony.
Of the Greek states, the most were joined either to the Athenian or the
Peloponnesian league, but Corcyra had joined neither. But having a quarrel
with Corinth about Epidamnus, she now formed an alliance with Athens, whose
intervention enraged the Corinthians.
They then helped Potidæa, a Corinthian colony, but an Athenian
tributary, to revolt from Athens. Corinth next appealed to Sparta, as the
head of Hellas, to intervene ere it should be too late and check the
Athenian aggression, which threatened to make her the tyrant of all Greece.
At Sparta the war party prevailed, although King Archidamus urged that
sufficient pressure could be brought to bear without actual
hostilities.
The great prosperity and development of Athens since the Persian war had
filled other states with fear and jealousy. She had rebuilt her city walls
and refortified the port of Piræus after the Persian occupation;
Sparta had virtually allowed her to take the lead in the subsequent stages
of the war, as having the most effective naval force at command. Hence she
had founded the Delian league of the maritime states, to hold the seas
against Persia. At first these states provided fixed contingents of ships
and mariners; but Athens was willing enough to accept treasure in
substitution, so that she might herself supply the ships and men.
Thus the provision of forces by each state to act against Persia was
changed in effect into a tribute for the expansion of the Athenian fleet.
The continuous development of the power of Athens had been checked only
momentarily by her disastrous Egyptian expedition. Her nominal allies found
themselves actually her tributary dependencies, and various attempts to
break free from her yoke had made it only more secure and more
burdensome.
Hence the warlike decision of Sparta was welcomed by others besides
Corinth. But diplomatic demands preceded hostilities. Sparta and Athens
sent to each other summons and counter-summons for the "expulsion of the
curse," that is of all persons connected with certain families which lay
under the curse of the gods.
In the case of Athens, this amounted to requiring the banishment of her
greatest citizen and statesman, Pericles. To this the Spartans added the
demand that the Athenians should "restore the freedom of Hellas," and
should specifically remove certain trading disabilities imposed on the
people of Megara.
At this crisis Pericles laid down the rules of policy on which Athens
ought to act--rules which required her to decline absolutely to submit to
any form of dictation from Sparta. When a principle was at stake, it made
no difference whether the occasion was trivial or serious. Athens could
face war with confidence. Her available wealth was far greater--a matter of
vital importance in a prolonged struggle. Her counsels were not divided by
the conflicting interests of allies all claiming to direct military
movements and policy. Her fleet gave her command of the sea, and enabled
her to strike when and where she chose. If Peloponnesian invaders ravaged
Attica, still no permanent injury would be done comparable to that which
the Athenians could inflict upon them. The one necessity was to concentrate
on the war, and attempt no extension of dominion while it was in
progress.
War was not yet formally declared when the Thebans attempted to seize
Platæa, a town of Boeotia, which had long been closely allied to
Athens. The attempt failed, and the Thebans were put to death; but the
Platæans appealed to Athens for protection against their powerful
neighbour, and when the Athenian garrison was sent to them, this was
treated as a casus belli.
Preparations were urged on both sides; Sparta summoned her allies to
muster their contingents on the Isthmus for the invasion of Attica, nearly
all the mainland states joining the Peloponnesian league. The islanders and
the cities in Asia Minor, on the other hand, were nearly all either
actually subject to Athens or in alliance with her.
As Pericles advised, the Athenians left the country open to the ravages
of the invading forces, and themselves retired within the city. In spite of
the resentment of those who saw their property being laid waste, Pericles
maintained his ascendency, and persuaded the people to devote their
energies to sending out an irresistible fleet, and to establishing a great
reserve both of ships and treasure, which were to be an annual charge and
brought into active use only in the case of dire emergency. The fleet
sailed round the Peloponnese, and the ravages it was able to inflict, with
the alarm it created, caused the withdrawal of the forces in Attica.
In that winter Pericles delivered a great funeral oration, or panegyric,
in memory of the Athenians who had so far fallen gloriously in defence of
their country, in which he painted the characteristic virtues of the
Athenian people in such a fashion as to rouse to the highest pitch the
patriotic pride of his countrymen, and their confidence in themselves, in
their future, and in their leader.

II.--Early Successes of Athens

In the second year of the war, Athens suffered from a fearful visitation
of the plague, which, however, made no way in the Peloponnese. It broke out
also among the reinforcements dispatched to Potidæa; and it required
all the skill of Pericles to reconcile the Athenians to the continuation of
the war, after seeing their territories overrun for the second time for six
weeks. By dint of dwelling on the supreme importance of their decisive
command of the sea, and on the vast financial resources which secured their
staying power, he maintained his ascendency until his death in the
following year, though he had to submit to a fine. The events which
followed his death only confirmed the profundity of his political judgment,
and the accuracy with which he had gauged the capacities of the state. In
that winter Potidæa was forced to capitulate to the Athenians.
In the summer of the third year, the Lacedæmonians called on the
Platæans to desert the Athenian alliance. On their refusal,
Platæa was besieged by the allied forces of the Peloponnesians. With
splendid resolution, the Platæans defeated the attempt of the allies
to force an entry till they were able to complete and withdraw behind a
second and more easily tenable line of defence, when the Peloponnesians
settled down to a regular investment. The same year was marked by the
brilliant operations of the Athenian admiral Phormio in the neighbourhood
of Naupactus.
On the other hand, a Peloponnesian squadron threatened the Piræus,
caused some temporary panic, and awakened the Athenians to the necessity of
maintaining a look-out, but otherwise effected little. The year is further
noted for the invasion of Macedonia by the Thracian or Scythian king
Sitalces, who was, however, induced to retire.
In the next year, Lesbos revolted against the Athenian supremacy. As a
result, an Athenian squadron blockaded Mitylene. The Lacedaæonians
were well pleased to accept alliance with a sea-power which claimed to have
struck against Athens, not as being subject to her, but in anticipation of
attempted subjugation. The prompt equipment, however, of another Athenian
fleet chilled the naval enthusiasm of Sparta.
During this winter the Platæans began to feel in straits from
shortage of supplies, and it was resolved that a party of them should break
through the siege lines, and escape to Athens, a feat of arms which was
brilliantly and successfully accomplished.
In the next--the fifth--summer, Mitylene capitulated; the fate of the
inhabitants was to be referred to Athens. Here Cleon had now become the
popular leader, and he persuaded the Athenians to order the whole of the
adult males to be put to death. The opposition, however, succeeded in
getting this bloodthirsty resolution rescinded. The second dispatch, racing
desperately after the first, did not succeed in overtaking it, but was just
in time to prevent the order for the massacre from being carried out.
Lesbos was divided among Athenian citizens, who left the Lesbians in
occupation as before, but drew a large rental from them.
In the same summer the remaining garrison of Platæa surrendered to
the Lacedæmonians, on terms to be decided by Lacedæmonian
commissioners. Before them the Platæans justified their resistance,
but the commissioners ignored the defence, and, on the pretext that the
only question was whether they had suffered any "wrong" at the hands of the
Platæans, and that the answer to that was obvious, put the
Platæans to death and razed the city to the ground.
Meanwhile, at Corcyra, the popular and the oligarchical parties, who
favoured the Athenians and Peloponnesians respectively, had reached the
stage of murderous hostility to each other. The oligarchs captured the
government, and were then in turn attacked by the popular party; and there
was savage faction fighting. An attempt was made by the commander of the
Athenian squadron at Naupactus to act as moderator; the appearance of a
Peloponnesian squadron and a confused sea-fight, somewhat in favour of the
latter, brought the popular party to the verge of a compromise. But the
Peloponnesians retired on the reported approach of a fresh Athenian fleet,
and a democratic reign of terror followed.
"The father slew the son, and the supplicants were torn from the temples
and slain near them." And thus was initiated the peculiar horror of this
war--the desperate civil strife in one city after another, oligarchs hoping
to triumph by Lacedæmonian and democrats by Athenian, support, and
either party, when uppermost, ruling by terror. It was at this time also
that the Ionian and Dorian cities of Sicily, headed by Leontini and
Syracuse respectively, went to war with each other, and an Athenian
squadron was first induced to participate in the struggle.
Among the operations of the next, or sixth, summer was a campaign which
the Athenian commander Demosthenes conducted in Ætolia--successful at
the outset, but terminating in disaster, which made the general afraid to
return to Athens. He seized a chance, however, of recovering his credit by
foiling a Lacedæmonian expedition against Naupactus; and in other
ways he successfully established a high military reputation, so that he was
no longer afraid to reappear at Athens.
Next year, the Athenians dispatched a larger fleet with Sicily for its
objective. Demosthenes, however, who had a project of his own in view, was
given an independent command. He was thus enabled to seize and fortify
Pylos, a position on the south-west of Peloponnese, with a harbour
sheltered by the isle of Sphacteria. The Spartans, in alarm, withdrew their
invading force from Attica, and attempted to recover Pylos, landing over
400 of their best men on Sphacteria. The locality now became the scene of a
desperate struggle, which finally resulted in the Spartans on Sphacteria
being completely isolated.
So seriously did the Lacedæmonians regard this blow that they
invited the Athenians to make peace virtually in terms of an equal
alliance; but the Athenians were now so confident of a triumphant issue
that they refused the terms--chiefly at the instigation of Cleon. Some
supplies, however, were got into Sphacteria, owing to the high rewards
offered by the Lacedæmonians for successful blockade-running. At this
moment, Cleon, the Athenian demagogue, having rashly declared that he could
easily capture Sphacteria, was taken at his word and sent to do it. He had
the wit, however, to choose Demosthenes for his colleague, and to take
precisely the kind of troops Demosthenes wanted; with the result that
within twenty days, as he had promised, the Spartans found themselves with
no other alternatives than annihilation or surrender. Their choice of the
latter was an overwhelming blow to Lacedæmonian prestige.

III.--Victories of Lacedæmon

The capture of the island of Cythera in the next summer gave the
Athenians a second strong station from which they could constantly menace
the Peloponnese. On the other hand, in this year the Sicilians were
awakening to the fact that Athens was not playing a disinterested part on
behalf of the Ionian states, but was dreaming of a Sicilian empire. At a
sort of peace congress, Hermocrates of Syracuse successfully urged all
Sicilians to compose their quarrels on the basis of uti possidetis,
and thus deprive the Athenians of any excuse for remaining. Thus for the
time Athenian aspirations in that quarter were checked.
At Megara this year the dissensions of the oligarchical and popular
factions almost resulted in its capture by the Athenians. The
Lacedæmonian Brasidas, however--who had distinguished himself at
Pylos--effected an entry, so that the oligarchical and Peloponnesian party
became permanently established in power. The most important operations were
now in two fields. Brasidas made a dash through Thessaly into Macedonia, in
alliance with Perdiccas of Macedon, with the hope of stirring the cities of
Chalcidice to throw off the Athenian yoke; and the democrats of Boeotia
intrigued with Athens to assist in a general revolution. Owing partly to
misunderstandings and partly to treachery, the Boeotian democrats failed to
carry out their programme, the Athenians were defeated at Delium, and
Delium itself was captured by the Boeotians.
Meanwhile, Brasidas succeeded in persuading Acanthus to revolt, he
himself winning the highest of reputations for justice and moderation as
well as for military skill. Later in the year he suddenly turned his forces
against the Athenian colony of Amphipolis, which he induced to surrender by
offering very favourable terms before Thucydides, who was in command of
Thasos, arrived to relieve it. The further successes of Brasidas during
this winter made the Athenians ready to treat for peace, and a truce was
agreed upon for twelve months. Brasidas, however, continued to render aid
to the subject cities which revolted from Athens--this being now the ninth
year of the war--but he failed in an attempt to capture Potidæa.
The period of truce terminating without any definite peace being arrived
at, the summer of the tenth year is chiefly notable for the expedition sent
under Cleon to recover Amphipolis, and for a recrudescence of the old
quarrel in Sicily between Leontini and Syracuse. Before Amphipolis, the
incompetent Cleon was routed by the skill of Brasidas; but the victor as
well as the vanquished was slain, though he lived long enough to know of
the victory. Their deaths removed two of the most zealous opponents of the
peace for which both sides were now anxious. Hence at the close of the
tenth year a definite peace was concluded.
The Lacedæmonians, however, were almost alone in being fully
satisfied by the terms, and the war was really continued by an
anti-Laconian confederation of the former Peloponnesian allies, who saw in
the peace a means to the excessive preponderance of Athens and Sparta.
Argos was brought into the new confederacy in the hope of establishing her
nominal equality with Sparta. For some years from this point the
combinations of the states were constantly changing, while Athens and
Sparta remained generally on terms of friendliness, the two prominent
figures at Athens being the conservative Nicias and the restless and
ambitious young intriguer Alcibiades.
In the fourteenth year there were active hostilities between Argos, with
which by this time Athens was in alliance, and Lacedæmon, issuing in the
great battle of Mantinea, where there was an Athenian contingent with the
Argives. This was notable especially as completely restoring the prestige
of the Lacedæmonian arms, their victory being decisive. The result
was a new treaty between Sparta and Argos, and the dissolution of the
Argive-Athenian alliance; but this was once more reversed in the following
year, when the Argive oligarchy was attacked successfully by the popular
party.
The next year is marked by the high-handed treatment of the island of
Melos by the Athenians. This was one of the very few islands which had not
been compelled to submit to Athens, but had endeavoured to remain neutral.
Thither the Athenians now sent an expedition, absolutely without excuse, to
compel their submission.
The Melians, however, refused, and gave the Athenians a good deal of
trouble before they could be subdued, when the adult male population was
put to death, and the women and children enslaved. At this time the
Athenians resolved, under colour of an appeal for assistance from the
Sicilian city of Egesta, deliberately to set about the establishment of
their empire in Sicily. The aggressive policy was vehemently advocated by
Alcibiades, and opposed by Nicias. Nevertheless, he, with Alcibiades and
Lamachus, was appointed to command the expedition, which was prepared on a
scale of unparalleled magnificence. It was on the point of starting, when
the whole city was stirred to frenzy by the midnight mutilation of the
sacred images called Hermæ, an act laid at the door of Alcibiades,
along with many other charges of profane outrages. Of set purpose, however,
the enemies of Alcibiades refused to bring him to trial. The expedition
sailed. The Syracusans were deaf to the warnings of Hermocrates until the
great fleet had actually arrived at Rhegium.
Nicias was now anxious to find an excuse, in the evident falsity of
statements made by the Egestans, for the fleet to content itself with
making a demonstration and then returning home. The scheme of Alcibiades,
however, was adopted for gaining over the other Sicilian states in order to
crush Syracuse. But at this moment dispatches arrived requiring the return
of Alcibiades to stand trial. Athens was in a panic over the Hermæ
affair, which was supposed to portend an attempt to reestablish the
despotism which had been ended a hundred years before by the expulsion of
the Pisistratidæ. Alcibiades, however, made his escape, and for years
pursued a life of political intrigue against the Athenian government.
Nicias and Lamachus, left in joint command, drew off the Syracusan
forces by a ruse, and were thus enabled to occupy unchecked a strong
position before Syracuse. Although, however, they inflicted a defeat on the
returned Syracusan forces, they withdrew into winter quarters; the
Syracusans were roused by Hermocrates to improve their military
organisation; and both sides entered on a diplomatic contest for winning
over the other states of Sicily. Alcibiades, now an avowed enemy of Athens,
was received by the Lacedæmonians, whom he induced to send an able
Spartan officer, Gylippus, to Syracuse, and to determine on the
establishment of a military post corresponding to that of Pylos on Attic
soil at Decelea.

IV.--The Disaster of Syracuse

In the spring the Athenians succeeded in establishing themselves on the
heights called Epipolæ, overlooking Syracuse, began raising a wall of
circumvallation, and carried by a surprise the counter-stockade which the
Syracusans were raising. In one of the skirmishes, while the building of
the wall was in progress, Lamachus was killed; otherwise matters went well
for the Athenians and ill for the Syracusans, till Gylippus was allowed to
land at Himera, force his way into Syracuse, and give new life. Nicias was
guilty of the blunder of allowing Gylippus to land at Himera, to aid the
defence, at the moment when it was on the point of capitulation. A long
contest followed, the Athenians endeavouring to complete the investing
lines, the Syracusans to pierce them with counterworks. Nicias sent to
Athens for reinforcements, while the Syracusans were energetically fitting
out a fleet and appealing for air in the Peloponnese. Nicias, in fact, was
extremely despondent and anxious to resign; the Athenians, however,
answered his dispatches by preparing a great reinforcement under the
command of Demosthenes, without accepting the resignation of Nicias. The
Lacedæmonians, however, also sent some reinforcements; at the same
time they formally declared war, and carried out the plan of occupying and
fortifying Decelea, which completely commanded the Athenian territory and
was the cause of untold loss and suffering.
Now, at Syracuse the besieged took the offensive both by sea and land,
and were worsted on the water, but captured some of the Athenian forts,
commanding the entry to the besiegers' lines--a serious disaster. By the
time that Demosthenes with his reinforcements reached Sicily nearly the
whole island had come over to the side of Syracuse. Before this, the
Syracusans had again challenged an engagement both by sea and land, with
results indecisive on the first day but distinctly in their favour on the
second. At this juncture, Demosthenes arrived, and, seeing the necessity
for immediate action, made a night attack on the Syracusan lines; but, his
men falling into confusion after a first success, the attempt was
disastrously repulsed.
Demosthenes was quick to realise that the whole situation was hopeless;
but Nicias lacked nerve to accept the responsibility of retiring, and also
had some idea that affairs within Syracuse were favourable. His obstinacy
gave Demosthenes and his colleague Eurymedon the impression that he was
guided by secret information. And now it became the primary object of
Gylippus and the Syracusans to keep the Athenians from retiring. Another
naval defeat reduced the Athenians to despair; they resolved that they must
cut their way out.
The desperate attempt was made, but by almost hopeless men against an
enemy now full of confidence. To the excited, almost agonised, watchers on
shore, it seemed for a brief space that the ships might force a passage;
the fight was a frenzied scuffle; but presently the terrible truth was
realised--the Athenian ships were being driven ashore. The last hope of
escape by sea was gone, for, though there were still ships enough, the
sailors were too utterly demoralised to make the attempt.
Hermocrates and Gylippus, sure that a retreat by land would not be
tried, succeeded by a trick in detaining the Athenians till they had
themselves sent out detachments to hold the roads. On the third day the
Athenians began their retreat in unspeakable misery, amid the lamentations
of the sick and wounded, whom they were forced to leave behind. For three
days they struggled on, short of food and perpetually harassed, cut off
from all communications. On the third day their passage was barred in a
pass, and they found themselves in a trap. On the third night they
attempted to break away by a different route, but the van and the rear lost
touch. Overtaken by the Syracusans, Demosthenes attempted to fight a
rearguard action, but in vain, and he was forced to surrender at discretion
with his whole force. Next day, Nicias with the van was overtaken, and,
after a ghastly scene of confusion and slaughter, the remnants of the
vanguard were forced to surrender also. Nicias and Demosthenes were put to
death; great numbers were seized as private spoil by their captors, the
rest of the prisoners--more than 7,000--were confined for weeks under the
most noisome conditions in the quarries, and finally the survivors were
sold as slaves. So pitiably ended that once magnificent enterprise in the
nineteenth year of the war.
The terrific disaster filled every enemy of Athens with confident
expectation of her immediate and utter ruin. Lacedæmonians
anticipated an unqualified supremacy. At Athens there was a stubborn
determination to prepare for a desperate stand; but half the islanders were
intriguing for Lacedæmonian or Persian aid in breaking free, while
Alcibiades became extremely busy.
The first Peloponnesian squadron which attempted to move was promptly
driven into Piræus by an Athenian fleet and blockaded. On the open
revolt of some of the states, the Athenians for the first time brought into
play their reserve fund and reserve navy--the emergency had arisen. While
one after another of the subject cities revolted, the Athenians struck hard
at Chios, and especially Miletus, and obtained marked successes. Meanwhile,
a revolution in Samos had expelled the oligarchy and re-established the
democracy, to which the Athenians accorded freedom, thereby securing an
ally. In Lesbos also they recovered their challenged supremacy.
Phrynicus now came into prominence as a shrewd commander and a crafty
politician, while the intricate intrigues of Alcibiades, whose great object
was to recover his position at Athens, created perpetual confusion. These
events took place in the twentieth year of the war, and to them must be
added a Lacedæmonian treaty with Persia through the satrap
Tissaphernes. All the leading men, however, were engaged in playing fast
and loose, each of them having his personal ambitions in view. Of this
labyrinth of plots and counter-plots, the startling outcome was the sudden
abrogation of the constitution at Athens and the capture of the government
by a committee of five with a council of four hundred and a supplementary
assembly of five thousand--in place of the whole body of citizens as
formerly. The Five and the Four Hundred in effect were the Government, and
established a reign of terror.
At Athens, the administration thus formed was effective; but the army
and fleet at Satnos repudiated the revolution and swore loyalty to the
democracy, claiming to be the true representatives of the Athenian state.
Moreover, they allied themselves with Alcibiades, expecting through him to
receive Persian support; and, happily for Athens, he succeeded in
restraining the fleet--which was still more than a match for all
adversaries--from sailing back to the Piræus to subvert the rule of
the Four Hundred. The more patriotic of the oligarchs saw, in fact, that
the best hopes for the state lay in the establishment of a limited
democracy; with the result that the extreme oligarchs, who would have
joined hands with the enemy, were overthrown, and the rule of the Five
Thousand replaced that of the Four Hundred, providing Athens with the best
administration it had ever known. A great naval victory was won by the
Athenian fleet, under the command of Thrasybulus, over a slightly larger
Peloponnesian fleet at Cynossema.

XENOPHON

Anabasis

Xenophon was born at Athens about B.C. 430, and died
probably in 355. He was an Athenian gentleman who in his early-manhood was
an intimate member of the Socratic circle. In 401 he joined the expedition
of Cyrus, recorded in the "Anabasis," and did not again take up his
residence in Athens. The "Anabasis" must be introduced by an historical
note. In the year 404 B.C. the Peloponnesian war was brought to a close by
a peace establishing the Lacedæmonian supremacy consequent upon the
crowning disaster to the Athenians at Aegos Potami. In the same year the
Persian king Darius Nothus died, and was succeeded on the throne by his son
Artaxerxes. His younger son, Cyrus, determined to make a bid for the
throne. He had personal knowledge of the immense superiority of the Greek
soldiery and the Greek discipline over those of the Eastern nations.
Accordingly, he planned to obtain the services of a large contingent of
Greek mercenaries, who had become the more readily available since the
internecine struggle between the two leading states of Hellas had been
brought to an end. The term "Anabasis," or "going up," applies properly to
the advance into the interior; the retreat, with which the work is mainly
concerned, is the "Katabasis." The author writes his record in the third
person. This epitome has been specially adapted for THE WORLD'S GREATEST
BOOKS from the Greek text.

I.--The Going-up of Cyrus

Cyrus, the younger brother of Artaxerxes the king, began his
preparations for revolt by gradually gathering and equipping an army on the
pretext of hostile relations between himself and another of the western
satraps, Tissaphernes. Notably, he secretly furnished Clearchus, a
Lacedæmonian, with means to equip a Greek force in Thrace; another
like force was ready to move from Thessaly under Aristippus; while a
Boeotian, Proxenus, and two others friends were commissioned to collect
more mercenaries to aid in the war with Tissaphernes.
Next, an excuse for marching up-country, at the head of all these
forces, was found in the need of suppressing the Pisidians. He advanced
from Sardis into Phrygia, where his musters were completed at
Celænæ. A review was held at Tyriæum, where the Cilician
queen, who had supplied funds, was badly frightened by a mock charge of the
Greek contingent. When the advance had reached Tarsus, there was almost a
mutiny among the Greeks, who were suspicious of the intentions of Cyrus.
The diplomacy, however, of their principal general, Clearchus, the
Lacedæmonian, coupled with promises of increased pay, prevailed,
though it had long been obvious that Pisidia was not the objective of the
expedition.
Further reinforcements were received at Issus, the eastern seaport of
Cilicia; Cyrus then marched through the Cilician gate into Syria. At
Myriandrus two Greek commanders, probably through jealousy of Clearchus,
deserted. Cyrus won popularity by refusing to presume thereon; and the
whole force now struck inland to Thapsacus, on the Euphrates.
At Thapsacus, Cyrus announced his purpose. The Greek soldiers were angry
with their generals for having, as they supposed, wilfully misled them, but
were mollified by promise of large rewards. One of the commanders, Menon,
won the approval of Cyrus by being the first to lead his own contingent
across the Euphrates on his own initiative. The advance was now conducted
by forced marches through a painfully sterile country. In the course of
this, the troops of Clearchus and Menon very nearly came to blows; the
intervention of Proxenus only made matters worse; and order was restored by
the arrival of Cyrus, who pointed out that the whole expedition must be
ruined if the Greeks fell out among themselves.
By this time, Artaxerxes had realised that the repeated warnings of
Tissaphernes and others were justified; and as the expedition neared
Babylonia, signs of the enemy became apparent in the deliberate devastation
of the country. Here Orontes, one of the principal Persian officers of
Cyrus, was convicted of treason and put to death.
The army was again reviewed, the whole force amounting to some 100,000
barbarians and nearly 14,000 Greeks; the enemy were reputed to number over
1,000,000, though not so many took part in the engagement. Cyrus now
advanced, expecting battle immediately at an entrenched pass; but, finding
this unoccupied, he did not maintain battle order; which was hurriedly
taken up on news of the approach of the royal forces. The Greeks, under
Clearchus, occupied the right wing, Cyrus being in the centre, and
Ariæus on the left. The king's army was so large that its centre
extended beyond the left of Cyrus.
The Greeks advanced on the royalist left, which broke and fled almost
without a blow. Thinking that the Greeks might be intercepted and cut off,
Cyrus charged the centre in person with his bodyguard, and routed the
opposing troops; but dashing forward in the hope of capturing Artaxerxes,
was himself pierced by a javelin, and fell dead on the field. So ended the
career of the most brilliant Persian since Cyrus the Great had established
the Persian Empire; brave, accomplished, the mirror of honour, just himself
and the rewarder of justice in others, generous and most loyal to his
friends.

II.--The Homeward March

When Cyrus fell, the left wing, under Ariæus, broke and fled. The
Greeks had meantime poured on in pursuit of the royalist left, while the
main body of the royalists were in possession of the rebel camp, though a
Greek guard, which had been left there, held the Greek quarter. Artaxerxes,
however, had no mind to give battle to the returning Greek column.
It was not till next day that Clearchus and his colleagues learned by
messengers from Ariæus that Cyrus was slain, and that Ariæus
had fallen back to the last halting-place, where he proposed to wait
twenty-four hours, and no more, before starting in his retreat westward.
Clearchus replied, that the Greeks, for their part, had been victorious,
and that if Ariæus would rejoin them they would win the Persian crown
for him, since Cyrus was dead. The next message was from Artaxerxes
inviting the Greeks to give up their arms; to which they replied that he
might come and take them if he could, but if he meant to treat them as
friends, they would be no use to him without their arms, if as enemies,
they would keep them to defend themselves.
Though no formal appointment was made, the Greeks recognised Clearchus
as their leader. They fell back to join Ariæus, who declined the
proposal to seat him on the Persian throne; and it was agreed to follow a
new route in retreat to Ionia, the way by which the force had advanced
being now impracticable.
Now, however, Artaxerxes began to negotiate through Tissaphernes, the
Greeks maintaining a bold and even contemptuous front, warranted by the
king's obvious fear of risking an engagement.
Finally, an offer came to conduct the Greeks back to Grecian territory,
providing them, at their own cost, with necessaries. Prolonged delays,
however, aroused suspicions of treachery among the Greeks, who distrusted
Tissaphernes and Ariæus alike; but Clearchus held it better not to
break openly with the Persians. The march at last began along a northerly
route towards the Black Sea, the Greeks keeping rigidly apart from the
Persian forces which accompanied them, in readiness for an attack.
At the crossing of the Tigris suspicion was particularly active, the
conduct of Ariæus being especially dubious; but still no overt
hostilities were attempted until the river Zabatus was reached, after three
weeks of marching. Here Clearchus endeavoured to end the extremely strained
relations between the Greeks and the barbarian commanders by an interview
with Tissaphernes. Both men carefully repudiated any idea of hostile
intentions, and the Persian invited Clearchus and the Greek officers
generally to attend a conference. Not all, but a considerable number--five
generals, including Clearchus, Proxenus, and Menon, with twenty more
officers and nearly two hundred others--attended. At a given signal all
were treacherously massacred; but a fugitive reached the Greek camp, where
the men sprang to arms. Ariæus, approaching with an escort, declared
that Clearchus had been proved guilty of treason, but was received with
fierce indignation, and withdrew.
Of the murdered generals, Clearchus was a man of high military capacity,
but a harsh disciplinarian, feared and respected, but very unpopular;
Proxenus, a particular friend of Xenophon, was an amiable but not a strong
man; Menon, the Thessalian, was a crafty and hypocritical time-server, of
whom no good can be spoken.
The ten thousand Greeks were now in an ugly predicament; they were a
thousand miles from home, while between them and the Black Sea lay the
mountains of Armenia. They were surrounded by hostile hordes, and were
without cavalry. They had no recognised chief, and their most trusted
leaders were gone. The whole company seemed paralysed under a universal
despondency. It was at this juncture that Xenophon, an Athenian
gentleman-volunteer, was stirred to action by a dream. He rose and roused
the officers of the contingent of Proxenus, to which he was attached.
Heartened by an address, in which he pointed out that, on the one hand they
had to depend on their own courage, skill, and resourcefulness, and, on the
other, were released from all obligation to the Persians, they unanimously
chose him their leader, and at his instigation roused the senior officers
of all the other contingents to assemble for deliberation.
The council thus summoned, inspired again by the words of Xenophon,
vigorously backed up by other leaders, appointed new generals, among them
Xenophon himself, and set about actively to organise a retreat to the sea.
The contagion of resolute determination spread through the ranks of the
whole force. Cheirisophus the Lacedæmonian was given the chief
command, the two youngest generals, Xenophon and Timerion, were placed in
charge of the rear-guard. A troop of slingers was organised; all horses
with the arroy were sequestrated to form a cavalry squadron. The army
started on its march through the unknown, formed in a hollow square, which
was shortly so organised that the columns could be broadened or narrowed
according to the ground without creating confusion.
They soon found themselves able to repulse without difficulty even
attacks in force by the troops of Tissaphernes, the enemy being entirely
outmatched in hand-to-hand fighting. The slingers and archers, however,
proved troublesome, and hostile forces, though keeping out of reach, were
never far off. At last Tissaphernes and Ariæus drew off altogether,
and the Greek generals having as alternative courses the march east upon
Susa, north upon Babylon, and west towards Ionia, decided to revert to the
course northwards to the Black Sea.

III.--The Sea! The Sea!

This route led at first through the country of the Carduchi, a very
warlike folk who had never been subjugated. Here there was a good deal of
hard fighting, the Carduchi being adepts in hill warfare, and particularly
expert archers. Such was the length and weight of their arrows that Greeks
collected them, and used them as javelins. Seven days of this brought the
retreating force to the river Centrites, which parts the Carduchian
mountains from the province of Armenia. With a barely fordable river,
troops in evidence on the other side, and the Carduchi hanging on their
rear, the passage offered great difficulties, solved by the discovery of a
much shallower ford. A feint at one point by the rearguard drew off the
enemy on the opposite bank, while the main body crossed at the shallows,
which the rearguard also managed to pass by a successful ruse which misled
the Carduchi.
The Persian governor of Western Armenia, Tiribazus, offered safe passage
through his province, but scouts brought information that large forces were
collecting, and would dispute the passage of a defile through which the
army must pass. This point, however, was reached by a forced march, and the
enemy was put to rout.
For some days after this the marching was very severe; the men had to
struggle forward on very nearly empty stomachs, through blizzards,
suffering terribly from frostbite and the blinding effect of the snow on
their eyes, so that at times nothing short of actual threats from the
officers could induce the exhausted men to toil forward; and all the time
the enemy's skirmishers were harassing the troops and cutting off
stragglers. These, however, were finally dispersed by a sudden onslaught of
the rearguard, and after this a more populous district was reached, where
food and wine abounded, and the Greeks, who were not ill-received, made
some days' halt to recuperate.
Here a guide was obtained for the next stages; but on the third night he
deserted, because Cheirisophus had lost his temper and struck him. This
incident was the only occasion of a serious difference between Xenophon and
the elder commander. On the seventh day after this the river Phasis was
crossed; but two days later, on approaching a mountain pass, it was seen to
be occupied in force. A council of war was held, at which some jesting
passed, Xenophon remarking on the reputation of the Lacedæmonians as
adepts in thieving, a jibe which Cheirisophus retorted on the Athenians; as
the business in hand was to "steal a match" on the enemy, each encouraged
the other to act up to the national reputation. In the night, a detachment
of volunteers captured the ridge above the pass; the enemy facing the main
body beat a hasty retreat when they found their position turned.
Another five days brought the army into the country of the Taochi, where
the Greeks had to rush a somewhat dangerous position in order to capture
supplies. A space of some twenty yards was open to such a storm of missiles
from above that it could only be passed by drawing the enemy's fire and
making a dash before fresh missiles were accumulated. When this was
accomplished, however, the foe offered no practical resistance, but flung
themselves over the cliffs.
Eighteen days later the Greeks reached a town called Gymnise, where they
obtained a guide. Their course lay through tribes towards whom the governor
was hostile, and the Greeks had no objection to gratifying him by spoiling
and burning on their way. On the fifth day after leaving Gymnise, a
mountain pass was reached.
When the van cleared the top of the mountain, there arose a great
shouting. And when Xenophon heard it, and they of the rear-guard, they
supposed that other enemies were ranged against them, for the men of the
land which had been ravaged were following behind; but when the clamour
grew louder and nearer, and the new arrivals doubled forward to where the
shouting was, so that it became greater and greater with the added numbers,
Xenophon thought this must be something of moment. Therefore, taking Lycias
and the horsemen, he rode forward at speed to give aid; and then suddenly
they were aware of the soldiers' shout, the word that rang through the
lines--"The sea! the sea!" Then every man raced, rear-guard and all, urging
horses and the very baggage-mules to the top of their speed, and when they
came to the top, they fell on each other's necks, and the generals, and
officers, too, with tears of delight. And in a moment, whoever it was that
passed the word, the men were gathering stones, and there they reared a
mighty column.
And as for the lucky guide, he betook himself home laden with
presents.
Of what befell between this point and the actual arrival of the army on
the coast of the Black Sea at the Grecian colony of Trapezus [Trebizond]
the most curious incident was that of the soldiers lighting upon great
quantities of honey, which not only made them violently ill, but had an
intoxicating effect, attributed to the herbs frequented by the bees in that
district. This necessitated a halt of some days. The second day's march
thence brought them to Trapezus, where they made sacrificial
thank-offerings to the gods, and further celebrated the occasion by holding
athletic games.

IV.--The End of the Expedition

But Trapezus was not Greece, and the problem of transport was serious.
The men, sick of marching, were eager to accomplish the rest of their
journey by sea. Cheirisophus the general, as being a personal friend of the
Lacedæmonian admiral stationed at Byzantium, was commissioned to
obtain ships from him to take the Greeks home.
Cheirisophus departed. The army, which still numbered over ten thousand
persons, was willing enough to maintain its military organisation for
foraging and for self-defence; also to make such arrangements as were
practicable for collecting ships in case Cheirisophus should fail them; but
the men flatly refused to consider any further movement except by
water.
So they stayed where they were, maintaining their supplies by raids on
the natives; but time passed, and there were no tidings of Cheirisophus. At
last, they saw nothing for it but to put the sick and other non-combatants
aboard of the vessels which had been secured, send them on by sea, and
themselves march by the coast to Cerasus, another Greek colony. Thence they
continued their westward progress, in which they met with considerable
resistance from the natives, who were barbarians of a primitive type, until
they came to Cotyora.
This was another settlement from Sinope; but it received the Greeks very
inhospitably, so that the latter continued their practice of ravaging the
neighbouring territories. It was now eight months since the expedition had
started on its homeward march. Here a deputation arrived from Sinope to
protest against their proceedings; but Xenophon pointed out that while they
were perfectly willing to buy what they needed and behave as friends, if
they were not allowed to buy, self-preservation compelled them to take by
force. Ultimately, the deputation promised to send ships from Sinope to
convey them thither.
During the time of waiting there was some risk of the force breaking
itself up, and some inclination to make attacks on the officers, including
Xenophon. The formulation of charges, however, enabled him amply to justify
the acts complained of, and order generally was restored. At last, however,
a sufficient number of ships were collected to convey the force to Sinope,
where also Cheirisophus put in his long-delayed appearance.
Cheirisophus came practically without ships and with nothing but vague
promises from the admiral at Byzantium. At this point it occurred to the
army that it would be better to have a single commander for the whole than
a committee of generals each in control of his own division. Hence Xenophon
was invited to accept the position. On consulting the omens he declined,
recommending that, since Cheirisophus was a Lacedæmonian, it would be
the proper thing to offer him the command, which was accordingly done.
The force now sailed from Sinope as far as Heraclea. Here the
contingents from Arcadia and Archæa--more than half the force--insisted on
requisitioning large supplies of money from Heraclea. Cheirisophus,
supported by Xenophon, refused assent; the Arcadians and Achæans
consequently refused to serve under their command any more, and appointed
captains for themselves. The other half of the army was also parted in two
divisions, commanded by Cheirisophus and Xenophon respectively.
From Calpe the Arcadians and Archæans made an expedition into the
interior, which fared so ill that Xenophon, hearing by accident of what had
happened, was obliged to march to their relief. To his satisfaction,
however, it was found that the enemy had already dispersed, and the Greek
column was overtaken on the way back to Calpe. The general effect of the
episode was to impress upon the Arcadians and Archæans that it was
commonsense for the whole force to remain united.
The usual operations were carried on for obtaining supplies, report
having arrived that Cleander, the Lacedæmonian governor of Byzantium,
was coming, which he presently did, with a couple of galleys but no
transports. From information received, Cleander was inclined to regard the
army as little better than a band of brigands; but this idea was
successfully dissipated by Xenophon. Cleander went back to Byzantium, and
the Greeks marched from Calpe to Chrysopolis, which faces Byzantium.
Here the whole force was at last carried over to the opposite shore, and
once more found itself on European soil, having received promises of pay
from the admiral Anaxibius. Suspicions of his real intentions were aroused,
and Xenophon had no little difficulty in preventing his soldiery from
breaking loose and sacking Byzantium itself.
Ultimately, the greater part of the force took service with the Thracian
king Seuthes. Seuthes, however, failed to carry out his promises as to
payments and rewards. But now the Lacedæmonians were engaged in a
quarrel with the western satraps, Tissaphernes and Artabazus; six thousand
veterans so experienced as those who had followed this famous march into
the heart of the Persian empire, had fought their way from Cunaxa to
Trapezus, and had supported themselves mainly by their military prowess in
getting from Trapezus to Europe, were a force by no means to be neglected,
and the bulk of the troops were not unwilling to be incorporated in the
Lacedæmonian armies. And so ends the story of the Retreat of the Ten
Thousand Greeks.

GEORGE GROTE

History of Greece

George Grote, born at Beckenham, England, Nov. 17, 1794,
entered the bank founded by his grandfather, from which he withdrew in
1843. He joined the group of "philosophic Radicals," among whom James Mill
was a leader, and was a keen politician and reformer, and an ardent
advocate of the ballot. His determination to write a sound "History of
Greece" was ensured, if it was not inspired, by Mitford's history, a work
full of anti-democratic fervour and very antagonistic to the great Greek
democratic state of Athens. In some respects his work is a defence of the
Athenian democracy, at least as contrasted with Sparta; it appeared in
twelve volumes between 1846 and 1856, and covered Greek history from the
earliest times "till the close of the generation contemporary with
Alexander the Great." It at once occupied, and still holds, the field as
the classic work on the subject as a whole, though later research has
modified many of his conclusions. His methods were pre-eminently thorough,
dispassionate, and judicial; but he suffers from a lack of sympathetic
imagination. He died on June 18, 1871, and was buried in Westminster Abbey.

I.--Early History

The divine myths constitute the earliest matter of Greek history. These
may be divided into those which belong to the gods and to the heroes
respectively; but most of them, in point of fact, present gods, heroes, and
men in juxtaposition. Every community sought to trace its origin to some
common divine, or semi-divine, progenitor; the establishment of a pedigree
was a necessity; and each pedigree contains at some, point figures
corresponding to some actual historical character, before whom the pedigree
is imaginary, but after whom, in the main, actual. The precise point where
the legend fades into the mythical, or consolidates into the historical, is
not usually ascertainable.
The legendary period culminates in the tale of Troy, which belongs to a
period prior to the Dorian conquest presented in the Herakleid legend; the
tale of Troy itself remaining the common heritage of the Greek peoples, and
having an actual basis in historical fact. The events, however, are of less
importance than the picture of an actual historical, political, and social
system, corresponding, not to the supposed date of the Trojan war, but to
the date of the composition of the Homeric poems. Later ages regarded the
myths themselves with a good deal of scepticism, and were often disposed to
rationalise them, or to find for them an allegorical interpretation. The
myths of other European peoples have undergone a somewhat similar
treatment.
Greece proper, that is, the European territory occupied by the Hellenic
peoples, has a very extensive coast-line, covers the islands of the
Ægean, and is so mountainous on the mainland that communication
between one point and another is not easy. This facilitated the system
which isolated communities, compelling each one to develop and perfect its
own separate organisation; so that Greece became, not a state, but a
congerie of single separate city states--small territories centering in the
city, although in some cases the village system was not centralised into
the city system. On the other hand, the Hellenes very definitely recognised
their common affinity, looked on themselves as a distinct aggregate, and
very emphatically differentiated that entire aggregate from the
non-Hellenes, whom they designated as "barbarians."
Of these states, the first to come into view--post-Homerically--is
Sparta, the head of the Dorian communities, governed under the laws and
discipline attributed to Lycurgus, with its special peculiarity of the dual
kingship designed to make a pure despotism impossible. The government lay
and remained in the hands of the conquering Spartan race--as for a time
with the Normans in England--which formed a close oligarchy, while within
the oligarchical body the organisation was democratic and communistic. For
Sparta, the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. were characterised by the two
Messenian wars; and we note that while the Hellenes generally recognised
her headship, Argos claimed a titular right to that position. As a general
rule, the primitive monarchical system portrayed in the Homeric poems was
displaced in the Greek cities by an oligarchical government, which in turn
was overthrown by an irregular despotism called tyrannis, primarily
established by a professed popular leader, who maintained his supremacy by
mercenary troops. One after another these usurping dynasties were again
ejected in favour either of a restored oligarchy or of a democracy. Sparta,
where the power of the dual kingship was extremely limited, was the only
state where the legitimate kingship survived. Corinth attained her highest
power Under the despot Periander, son of Cypselus. Of the Ionian section of
Greek states, the supreme type is Athens. Her early history is obscure. The
kingship seems to have ended by being, so to speak, placed in commission,
the royal functions being discharged by an elected body of Archons.
Dissensions among the groups of citizens issued in the democratic Solonian
constitution, which remained the basis of Athenian government, except
during the despotism of the house of Pisistratus in the latter half of the
sixth century B.C. But outside of Greece proper were the numerous Dorian
and Ionian colonies, really independent cities, planted in the coast
districts of Asia Minor, at Cyrene and Barka in Mediterranean Africa, in
Epirus (Albania), Southern Italy, Sicily, and even at Massilia in Gaul, and
in Thrace beyond the proper Hellenic area. These colonies brought the Greek
world in touch with Lydia and its king, Croesus, with the one sea-going
Semitic power, the Phoenicians, with the Egyptians, and more remotely with
the wholly Oriental empires of Assyria and Babylon, as well as with the
outer barbarians of Scythia.
Between 560 and 510 B.C., Athens was generally under the rule of the
despot Pisistratus and his son Hippias. In 510, the Pisistratidæ were
expelled, and Athens became a pure democracy. Meanwhile, the Persian Cyrus
had seized the Median monarchy and overthrown every other potentate in
Western Asia; Egypt was added to the vast Persian dominion by his son
Cambyses. A new dynasty was established by Darius, the son of Hystaspes,
who organized the empire, but failed to extend it by an incursion into
European Scythia.
The revolt of the Ionic cities in Asia Minor against the governments
established by the "great king" brought him in contact with the Athenians,
who sent help to Ionia. Demands for "earth and water," i.e., the
formal recognition of Persian sovereignty, sent to the apparently
insignificant Greek states were insolently rejected. Darius sent an
expedition to punish Athens in particular, and the Athenians drove his army
into the sea at the battle of Marathon.
Xerxes, son of Darius, organised an overwhelming force by land and sea
to eat up the Greeks. The invaders were met but hardly checked at
Thermopylæ, where Leonidas and the immortal three hundred fell; all
Greece north of the Isthmus of Corinth was in their hands, including
Athens. But their fleet was shattered to pieces, chiefly by the Athenians
under Themistocles and Aristides at Salamis, and the destruction of their
land forces was completed by the united Greeks at Platæa. A further
disaster was inflicted on the same day at Mycale.

II.--The Struggles of Athens and Sparta

Meanwhile, the Sicilian Greeks, led by Gelo of Syracuse, successfully
resisted and overthrew the aggression of Carthage, the issue being decided
at the battle of Himera. The part played by Athens under the guidance of
Themistocles in the repulse of Persia gave her a new position among the
Greek states and an indisputable naval leadership. As the maritime head of
Hellas she was chief of the naval Delian League, now formed ostensibly to
carry on the war against Persia. But the leaguers, who first contributed a
quota of ships, soon began to substitute money to provide ships, which in
effect swelled the Athenian navy, and turned the contributors into
tributaries. Thus, almost automatically, the Delian League converted itself
into an Athenian empire. In Athens itself an unparalleled personal
ascendancy was acquired by Pericles, who made the form of government and
administration more democratic than before. But this growing supremacy of
Athens aroused the jealous alarm of other Greek states. Sparta saw her own
titular hegemony threatened; the subject cities grew restive under the
Athenian yoke. Sparta came forward professedly as champion of the liberties
of Hellas; Athens, guided by Pericles, refused to submit to Spartan
dictation, and accepted the challenge which plunged Greece into the
Peloponnesian war.
The Athenians concentrated on the expansion of their naval armaments,
left the open country undefended and gathered within the city walls, and
landed forces at will on the Peloponnese. Platsea, almost their sole ally
on land, held out valiantly for some time, but was forced to surrender; and
Athens herself suffered frightfully from a visitation of the plague. After
the death of Pericles, Cleon became the most prominent leader of the
aggressive and democratic party, Nicias, of the anti-democratic peace
party. Over most of Greece in each state the oligarchic faction favoured
the Peloponnesian league, the democratic, Athens. The general Demosthenes
at Pylos effected the surrender of a Lacedæmonian force, which
temporarily shattered Sparta's military prestige, a blow in some degree
counteracted by the brilliant operations of Brasidas in the north, where,
however, both he and Cleon were killed.
Meanwhile, Athens was awakening to the possibilities of a great
sea-empire, in consequence of her intervention having been invited in
disputes among the Sicilian states. As the outcome, incited by the
brilliant young Alcibiades, she resolved on the fatal Sicilian expedition.
The expedition, planned under command of Alcibiades and Nicias, was
dispatched in spite of the startling mutilation of the Hermæ, a
sacrilegious performance attributed to Alcibiades. It had hardly reached
Sicily when he was recalled, but made his escape and spent some years
mainly in intriguing against Athens. The siege of Syracuse was progressing
favourably, when the Spartan Gylippus was allowed to enter and put new life
into the defence. Disaster followed on disaster both by sea and land;
finally, the whole Athenian force was either cut to pieces or surrendered
at discretion, to become the slaves of the Syracusans, both Nicias and
Demosthenes being put to death.
Meanwhile, the truce between Athens and Sparta had been ended, and war
again declared. Sparta occupied permanently a post of the Attic territory,
Deceleia, with merciless effect. The Sicilian disaster moved the islanders,
notably Chios, to revolt, by Spartan help, against Athens. She, however,
renovated her navy with unexpected vigour. But, with her fleets away,
Alcibiades inspired oligarchical intrigues in the city; a coup
d'état gave the government to the leaders of a group of 400. The
navy stood by the democratic constitution, the 400 were overthrown, and an
assembly, nominally of 5,000, assumed the government. A great Athenian
triumph at Arginusæ was followed later by a still more overwhelming
disaster at Ægos Potami.
The Spartan commander Lysander blockaded Athens; starvation forced her
to surrender. Lysander established the government known as that of the
Thirty Tyrants, who were headed by Kritias. Lysander's ascendancy created
in Sparta a party in opposition to him; in the outcome, the Spartan king
Pausanias helped in the overthrow of the Thirty at Athens by Thrasybulus,
and the restoration of the Athenian democracy. Throughout, the conduct of
the democratic party, at its best and its worst, contrasted favourably with
that of the oligarchical faction.
These eighty years were the great period of Athenian literature and art:
of the Parthenon and Phidias; of Æschylus, the soldier of Marathon;
then Sophocles and Euripides and Aristophanes; finally, of Socrates, not
himself an author, but the inspirer of Plato, and the founder of ethical
science; according to popular ideas, the typical Sophist, but in fact
differing from the Sophists fundamentally.

III.--The Blotting Out of Hellas

The triumph of Sparta has established her empire among the Greeks; she
used her power with a tyranny infinitely more galling than the sway of
Athens. The Spartan character had become greatly demoralised. Agesilaus,
who succeeded to the kingship, set on foot ambitious projects for a Greek
conquest of Asia; but Greece began to revolt against the Spartan dominion.
Thebes and other cities rose, and called for help from Athens, their former
foe. In the first stages of the ensuing war, of which the most notable
battle was Coronea, Sparta maintained her supremacy within the
Peloponnesus, but not beyond. Athens obtained the countenance of Persia,
and the counter-diplomacy of Sparta produced the peace known by the name of
the Spartan Antalcidas, establishing generally the autonomy of Greek
cities. But this in effect meant the restoration of Spartan domination.
In course of time, however, this brought about the defiance of Spartan
dictation by Thebes and the tremendous check to her power inflicted at the
battle of Leuctra, by Epaminondas the Theban, whose military skill and
tactical originality there overthrew the Spartan military prestige. As a
consequence, half the Peloponnese itself broke away from Sparta; a force
under Epaminondas aided the Arcadians, and the Arcadian federation was
established.
Hellenic Sicily during these years was having a history of her own of
some importance. Syracuse, after her triumph over the Athenian forces,
continued the contest with her neighbours, which had been the ostensible
cause of the Athenian expedition. But this was closed by the advent of
fresh invaders, the Carthaginians, who renewed the attack repulsed at
Himera. Owing to the disaster to Athens, her fleets were no longer to be
feared by Carthage as a protection to the Hellenic world; and for two
centuries to come, her interventions in Sicily were incessant. Now, the
presence of a foreign foe in Sicily gave intriguers for power at Syracuse
their opportunity, of which the outcome was the subversion of the democracy
and the establishment of Dionysius as despot.
His son, Dionysius II., succeeded, and was finally ejected by the
Corinthian Timoleon, who, after a brilliant career of victories as
Syracusan general against Carthage, acted as general liberator of Sicilian
cities from despotisms, laid down his powers, and was content with the
position, not of despot, but of counsellor, to the great prosperity of
Sicily as a whole.
Going back to the north of Greece, the semi-Hellenic Macedon with a
Hellenic dynasty was growing powerful. Philip--father of Alexander the
Great--was now king, and was resolved to make himself the head of the Greek
world. His great opponent is found in the person of the Athenian orator
Demosthenes, who saw that Philip was aiming at ascendancy, but generally
failed to persuade the Athenians to recognise the danger in which they
stood. Philip gradually achieved his immediate end of being recognised as
the captain-general of the Hellenes, and their leader in a new Persian war,
when his life was cut short by an assassin, and he was succeeded by his
youthful son Alexander.
The Greek states, awakening to their practical subjection, would have
thrown off the new yoke, but the young king with swift and overwhelming
energy swept down from Thrace upon Thebes, the centre of resistance, and
stamped it out. He had already conceived, in part at least, his vast
schemes of Asiatic conquest; while he lived, Greece had practically no
distinguishable history. She is merely an appendage to Macedon. Everything
is absorbed in the Macedon conqueror. With an army incredibly small for the
task before him, he entered Asia Minor, and routed the Persian forces on
the river Granicus. The Greek Memnon, the one able leader for the Persians,
would have organised against him a destructive naval power; but death
removed him.
Alexander dispersed the armies of the Persian king Darius at the Issus,
captured Tyre after a remarkable siege, and took easy possession of Egypt,
where he founded Alexandria. Having organised the administration of the
conquered territories, he marched to the Euphrates, but did not engage the
enormous Persian hosts till he found and shattered them at the battle of
Gaugamela, also called Arbela. Darius fled, and Alexander swept on to
Babylon, to Susa, to Persepolis, assuming the functions of the "Great
King." The fugitive Darius was assassinated. Alexander henceforth assumed a
new and oriental demeanour; but he continued his conquests, crossing the
Hindoo Koosh to Bactria, and then bursting into the Punjab. But his
ambitions were ended by his death, and their fulfilment, not at all
according to his designs, was left to the "Diadochi," the generals among
whom the conquered dominions were parted. Athens led the revolt against
Macedonian supremacy, but in vain. Demosthenes, condemned by the conquering
Antipater, took poison. The remainder of the history is that of the
blotting out of Hellas and of Hellenism.

HEINRICH SCHLIEMANN

Troy and Its Remains

Heinrich Schliemann was born at Kalkhorst, a village in
Mecklenburg-Schwerin, on January 6, 1822, and died on December 27, 1890.
During his early childhood an old scholar, who had fallen upon evil days,
delighted him with stories of the great deeds of Homeric heroes. At the age
of fourteen he was apprenticed in a warehouse, but never lost his love for
antiquity, and unceasingly prayed to God that he might yet have the
happiness to learn Greek. An accident released him from his low position,
and he went to Holland and found a situation in an office. He now began to
study languages, suffering extraordinary denials so as to be able to afford
money for his studies. In 1846 he was sent by his firm to Russia, learning
Swedish and Polish, and next acquired Greek. Later, he travelled in Europe
and the East, making a voyage round the world. At last he realised the
dream of his life. Inaugurating a series of explorations in Greece and Asia
Minor, Dr. Schliemann gained fame by his discoveries at Tiryus, Mycenæ,
and Troy, largely solving the problems of antiquity and archæology
associated with these localities. "Troy and Its Remains" is published here
in order that, having read in the classical histories, we may see how the
ancient world is reconstructed for modern readers, by the records of one of
the most famous of archæologists.

I.--Searching for the Site of Troy

Hissarlik, Plain of Troy, October 18, 1871. In my work, "Ithaca,
the Peloponnesus, and Troy," published in 1869, I endeavored to prove, both
by my own excavations and by the statement of the Iliad, that the Homeric
Troy cannot possibly have been situated on the heights of Bunarbashi, to
which place most archæologists assign it. At the same time I endeavoured
to explain that the site of Troy must necessarily be identical with the
site of that town which, throughout all antiquity and down to its Complete
destruction at the end of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century
A.D., was called Ilium, and not until 1,000 years, after its
disappearance--that is, in 1788 A.D.--was christened Ilium Novum by
Lechevalier, who, as his work proves, can never have visited his Ilium
Novum.
The site of Ilium is on a plateau 80 feet above the plain. Its
north-western corner is formed by a hill about 26 feet higher still, which
is about 705 feet in breadth and about 984 feet in length, and from its
imposing situation and natural fortifications, this hill of Hissarlik seems
specially suited to the acropolis of the town. Ever since my first visit I
never doubted that I should find the Pergamus of Priam in the depths of
this hill.
On October 10, 1871, I started with my wife from the Dardanelles for the
Plain of Troy, a journey of eight hours, and next day commenced my
excavations where I had, a year previously, made some preliminary
explorations, and had found, among other things, at a depth of 16 feet,
walls about 6-1/2 feet thick, which belong to a bastion of the time of
Lysimachus.
Hissarlik, the Turkish name of this imposing hill at the north-western
end of the site of Ilium, means "fortress," or "acropolis," and seems to
prove that this is the Pergamus of Priam; that here Xerxes in 480 B.C.
offered up 1,000 oxen to the Ilian Athena; that here Alexander the Great
hung up his armour in the temple of the goddess, and took away in its stead
some of the weapons therein dedicated, belonging to the time of the Trojan
war.
I conjectured that this temple, the pride of the Ilians, must have stood
on the highest point of the hill, and I therefore decided to excavate this
locality down to the native soil, and I made an immense cutting on the face
of the steep northern slope, about 66 feet from my last year's work.
Notwithstanding the difficulties due to coming on immense blocks of stone,
the work advances rapidly. My dear wife, an Athenian lady, who is an
enthusiastic admirer of Homer, and knows almost the whole of the Iliad by
heart, is present at the excavations from morning to night. All of my
workmen are Greeks from the neighbouring village of Renkoi; only on Sunday,
a day on which the Greeks do not work, I employ Turks.Hissarlik, October 26, 1871. Since my report of the 18th I have
continued the excavations with the utmost energy, with, on the average, 80
workmen, and I have to-day reached an average depth of 13 feet. I found an
immense number of round articles of terra-cotta, red, yellow, grey, and
black, with two holes, without inscriptions, but frequently with a kind of
potter's stamp upon them. I cannot find any trace of their having been used
for domestic purposes, and therefore I presume they have served as ex
votos for hanging up in the temples.
I found at a depth of about five feet three marble slabs with
inscriptions. One of these must, I think, from the character of the
writing, be assigned to the third century, the two others to the first
century B.C. A king spoken of in the third century writing must have been
one of the kings of Pergamus.
The view from the hill of Hissarlik is magnificent. Before me lies the
glorious Plain of Troy, traversed from the south-east to the north-west by
the Scamander, which has changed its bed since ancient times.Hissarlik, November 18, 1871. I have now reached a depth of 33
feet. During these operations I was for a time deceived by the enormous
mass of stone implements which were dug up, and by the absence of any trace
of metal, and supposed that I had come upon the Stone Age. But since the
sixth of this month there have appeared many nails, knives, lances, and
battle-axes of copper of such elegant workmanship that they can have been
made only by a civilised people. I cannot even admit that I have reached
the Bronze Period, for the implements and weapons which I find are too well
finished.
I must, however, observe that the deeper I dig the greater are the
indications of a higher civilisation. And as I thus find ever more and more
traces of civilisation the deeper I dig, I am now perfectly convinced that
I have not yet penetrated to the period of the Trojan war, and hence I am
more hopeful than ever of finding the site of Troy by further excavations;
for if ever there was a Troy--and my belief in this is firm--it can only
have been here, on the site of Ilium.

II.--Trojan Life and Civilisation

Hissarlik, April 5, 1872. On the first of this month I resumed
the excavations which were discontinued at the end of November.
In the ruins of houses I find, amongst other things, a great number of
small idols of very fine marble, with or without the symbols of the owl's
head and woman's girdle. Many Trojan articles found in the ruins have
stamped on them crosses of various descriptions, which are of the highest
importance to archæology. Such symbols were already regarded, thousands of
years before Christ, as religious tokens of the very greatest importance.
The figure of the cross represents two pieces of wood which were laid
crosswise upon one another before the sacrificial altars in order to
produce holy fire. The fire was produced by the friction of one piece of
wood against another.
At all depths we find a number of flat idols of very fine marble; upon
many of them is the owl's face, and a female girdle with dots. I am firmly
convinced that all of the helmeted owls' heads represent a goddess, and the
important question now presents itself, what goddess is it who is here
found so repeatedly, and is, moreover, the only one to be found upon the
idols, drinking-cups, and vases? The answer is, she must necessarily be the
tutelary goddess of Troy; she must be the Ilian Athena, and this indeed
perfectly agrees with the statement of Homer, who continually calls her
thea glaukopis Athene, "the goddess with the owl's face."Hissarlik, June 18, 1872. I had scarcely begun to extend a third
cutting into the hill when I found a block of triglyphs of Parian marble,
containing a sculpture in high relief which represents Phoebus Apollo, who,
in a long woman's robe with a girdle, is riding on the four immortal horses
which pursue their career through the universe. Nothing is to be seen of a
chariot. Above the head of the god is seen about two-thirds of the sun's
disc with twenty rays. The face of the god is very expressive, and the
folds of his robe are exquisitely sculptured; but my admiration is
specially excited by the four horses, which, snorting and looking wildly
forward, career through the universe with infinite power. Their anatomy is
so masterly that I confess I have never seen so masterly a work.
It is especially remarkable to find the sun-god here, for Homer knows
nothing of a temple to the sun in Troy, and later history says not a word
about the existence of such a temple. However, the image of Phoebus Apollo
does not prove that the sculpture must have belonged to a temple of the
sun; in my opinion it may just as well have served as an ornament to any
other temple.
I venture to express the opinion that the image of the sun, which I find
represented here thousands and thousands of times upon the whorls of
terra-cotta, must be regarded as the name or emblem of the town--that is,
Ilios. In like manner, this sun-god shone in the form of a woman upon the
propylæa of the temple of the Ilian Athena as a symbol of the
sun-city.
This head of the sun-god appears to me to have so much of the
Alexandrian style that I must adhere to history, and believe that this work
of art belongs to the time of Lysimachus, who, according to Strabo, after
the time of Alexander the Great, built here the new temple of the Ilian
Athena, which Alexander had promised to the town of Ilium after the
subjugation of the Persian Empire.
Were it not for the splendid terra-cottas which I find exclusively on
the primary soil and as far as 6-1/2 feet above it, I could swear that at a
depth of from 26 to 33 feet, I am among the ruins of the Homeric Troy. [The
reader should bear in mind that Dr. Schliemann finally came back to this
opinion.] For at this depth I have found a thousand wonderful objects;
whereas I find little in the lowest stratum, the removal of which gives
immense trouble. We daily find some of the whorls of very fine terra-cotta,
and it is curious that those which have no decorations at all are always of
the ordinary shape, and of the size of small tops, or like the craters of
volcanoes, while almost all those possessing decorations are flat, and in
the form of a wheel.
Metals, at least gold, silver, and copper, were known to the Trojans,
for I found a copper knife highly gilded, a silver hairpin, and a number of
copper nails at a depth of forty-six feet. I found many small instruments
for use as pins; also a number of ivory needles, and some curious pieces of
ivory, one in the form of a paper-knife, the other in the shape of an
exceedingly neat dagger. We discovered one-edged or double-edged knives of
white silex in the form of saws in quantities, each about two inches long;
also many hand millstones of lava, and some beautiful red vases, cups,
vessels, jugs, and hand plates. In these depths we likewise find many bones
of animals; boars' tusks, small shells, horns of the buffalo, ram, and
stag, as well as the vertebræ of the shark.
The houses and palaces in which the splendid terra-cottas were used were
large and spacious, for to them belong all the mighty heaps of stone, hewn
and unhewn, which cover them to the height of from 13 to 20 feet. These
buildings were easily destroyed, for the stones were only joined with
earth, and when the walls fell everything in the houses was crushed to
pieces by the immense blocks of stone. The primitive Trojan people
disappeared simultaneously with the destruction of their town. [Here, as
well as in what goes before, Dr. Schliemann writes on the supposition,
which he afterwards abandoned, that the remains in the lowest stratum are
those of the Trojans of the Iliad.]
Upon the site of the destroyed city new settlers, of a different
civilisation, manners, and customs, built a new town; but only the
foundation of their houses consisted of stones joined with clay; all the
house-walls were built of unburnt bricks. I must draw attention to the fact
that I have found twice on fragments of pottery the curious symbol of the
suastika, or crossed angles, which proves that the primitive Trojans
belonged to the Aryan race. This is further proved by the symbols on the
round terra-cottas. The existence of the nation which preceded the Trojans
was likewise of long duration, for all the layers of débris
at the depth of from 33 to 23 feet belong to it. They also were of Aryan
descent, for they possessed innumerable Aryan religious symbols. Several of
the symbols belonged to the time when Germans, Pelasgians, Hindoos,
Persians, Celts, and Greeks still formed one nation.
I found no trace of a double cup among this people, but instead of it
those curious cups which have a coronet below in place of a handle; then
those brilliant, fanciful goblets, in the form of immense champagne
glasses, and with two mighty handles on the sides; they are round below, so
that they can only stand on their mouths. Further, all those splendid
vessels of burnt earthenware, as, for instance, funeral, wine, or water
urns, five feet high; likewise, all of those vessels with a beak-shaped
mouth, bent back, and either short or long.
I have met with many very curious vases in the shape of animals with
three feet. The mouth of the vessel is in the tail, which is upright and
very thick, and is connected with the back by a handle. In these strata we
also meet with an immense number of those round terra-cottas--the
whorls--embellished with beautiful and ingenious symbolical signs, amongst
which the sun-god always occupies the most prominent position. But the
fire-machine of our primeval ancestors, the holy sacrificial altar with
blazing flames, the holy soma-tree, or tree of life, and the rosa
mystica, are also very frequently met with here.
This mystic rose, which occurs very often in the Byzantine sculptures,
and the name of which, as is well known, is employed to designate the Holy
Virgin in the Roman Catholic liturgies, is a very ancient Aryan symbol, as
yet, unfortunately, unexplained. It is very ancient, because I find it at a
depth of from 23 to 33 feet, in the strata of the successors to the
Trojans, which must belong to a period about 1,200 years before Christ.
At a depth of 30-1/2 feet, among the yellow ashes of a house destroyed
by fire, I found silver-ware ornaments and also a very pretty gold
ear-ring, which has three lows of stars on both sides; then two bunches of
earrings of various forms, most of which are of silver and terminate in
five leaves.
I now come to the strata of débris at a depth of from 23
to 13 feet, which are evidently also the remains of a people of the Aryan
race, who took possession of the town built on the ruins of Troy, and who
destroyed it and extirpated the inhabitants; for in these strata of ten
feet thick I find no trace of metal, and the structure of the houses is
entirely different. All the house-walls consist of small stones joined with
clay. In these strata--at a depth of from 23 to 13 feet--not only are all
the stone implements much rougher, but all the terra-cottas are of a
coarser quality. Still, they possess a certain elegance.
A new epoch in the history of Ilium commenced when the accumulation of
débris on this hill had reached a height of 13 feet below its
present surface; for the town was again destroyed, and the inhabitants
killed or driven out by a wretched tribe, which certainly must likewise
have belonged to the Aryan race, for upon the round terra-cottas I still
very frequently find the tree of life, and the simple cross and double
cross with the four nails. In these depths, however, the forms of the
whorls degenerate. Of pottery, however, much less is found, and all of it
is considerably less artistic than that which I have found in the preceding
strata. With the people to whom these strata belonged--from 13 to 6-1/2
feet below the surface--the pre-Hellenic ages end, for henceforth we see
many ruined walls of Greek buildings, of beautifully hewn stones laid
together without cement, and the painted and unpainted terra-cottas leave
no doubt that a Greek colony took possession of Ilium when the surface of
this hill was much lower than it is now.
It is impossible to determine when this new colonisation took place, but
it must have been much earlier than the visit of Xerxes reported by
Herodotus, which took place 480 years before Christ. The event may have
taken place 700 B.C.

III.--Homeric Legends Verified

Pergamus of Troy, August 4, 1872. On the south side of the hill
where I made my great trench I discovered a great tower, 40 feet thick,
which obstructs my path and appears to extend to a great length. I have
uncovered it on the north and south sides along the whole breadth of my
trench, and have convinced myself that it is built on the rock at a depth
of 46-1/2 feet.
This tower is now only 20 feet high, but must have been much higher. For
its preservation we have to thank the ruins of Troy, which entirely covered
it as it now stands. Its situation would be most interesting and imposing,
for its top would command not only a view of the whole plain of Troy, but
of the sea, with the islands of Tenedos, Imbros, and Samothrace. There is
not a more sublime situation in the whole area of the plain of Troy than
this.
In the ashes of a house at the depth of 42-1/2 feet I found a tolerably
well preserved skeleton of a woman. The colour of the bones shows that the
lady, whose gold ornaments were near by, was overtaken by fire and burnt
alive. With the exception of the skeleton of an infant found in a vase,
this is the only skeleton of a human being I have ever met with in the
pre-Hellenic remains on this hill. As we know from Homer, all corpses were
burnt and the ashes placed in urns, of which I have found great numbers.
The bones were always burnt to ashes.Pergamus of Troy, August 14, 1872. In stopping the excavations
for this year, and in looking back on the dangers to which we have been
exposed between the gigantic layers of ruins, I cannot but fervently thank
God for his great mercy, not only that no life has been lost, but that none
of us has been seriously hurt.
As regards the result of my excavations, everyone must admit that I have
solved a great historical problem, and that I have solved it by the
discovery of a high civilisation and immense buildings upon the primary
soil, in the depths of an ancient town, which throughout antiquity was
called Ilium and declared itself to be the successor of Troy, the site of
which was regarded as identical with the site of the Homeric Ilium by the
whole world of that time. The situation of this town not only corresponds
perfectly with all the statements of the Iliad, but also with all the
traditions handed down to us by later authorities.Pergamus of Troy, March 22, 1873. During this last week, with
splendid weather, and with 150 men on the average, I have got through a
good piece of work. On the north side of the excavation on the site of the
Temple of Athena I have already reached a depth of 26 feet, and have laid
bare the tower in several places.
The most remarkable of the objects found this week is a large knob of
the purest and finest crystal, belonging to a stick, in the form of a
beautifully wrought lion's head. It seems probable that in remote antiquity
lions existed in this region. Homer could not so excellently have described
them had he not had the opportunities of watching them.Pergamus of Troy, May 10, 1873. Although the Pergamus, whose
depths I have been ransacking, borders directly on the marshes formed by
the Simois, in which there are always hundreds of storks, yet none of them
ever settle down here. Though there are sometimes a dozen storks' nests on
one roof in the neighbouring Turkish villages, yet no one will settle on
mine, even though I have two comfortable nests made for them. It is
probably too cold and stormy for the little storks on Ilios
anemoessa.
My most recent excavations have far surpassed my expectations, for I
have unearthed two large gates, standing 20 feet apart, in a splendid
street which proceeds from the chief building in the Pergamus. I venture to
assert that this great double gate must be the Homeric Scæan Gate. It
is in an excellent state of preservation.
Here, therefore, by the side of the double gate, at Ilium's Great Tower,
sat Priam, the seven elders of the city, and Helen. From this spot the
company surveyed the whole plain, and saw at the foot of the Pergamus the
Trojan and Achæan armies face to face about to settle their agreement
to let the war be decided by a single combat between Paris and
Menelaus.
I now positively retract my former opinion that Ilium was inhabited up
to the ninth century after Christ, and I must distinctly maintain that its
site has been desolate and uninhabited since the end of the fourth century.
But Troy was not large. I am extremely disappointed at being obliged to
give so small a plan of the city; nay, I had wished to be able to make it a
thousand times larger, but I value truth above everything, and I rejoice
that my three years' excavations have laid open the Homeric Troy, even
though on a diminished scale, and that I have proved the Iliad based upon
real facts.
Homer is an epic poet, and not an historian; so it is quite natural that
he should have exaggerated everything with poetic licence. Moreover, the
events he describes are so marvellous that many scholars have long doubted
the very existence of Troy, and have considered the city to be a mere
invention of the poet's fancy. I venture to hope that the civilised world
will not only not be disappointed that the city of Priam has shown itself
to be scarcely a twentieth part as large as was to be expected from the
statements of the Iliad, but that, on the contrary, it will accept with
delight and enthusiasm the certainty that Ilium did really exist, that a
large portion of it has now been brought to light, and that Homer, even
though he exaggerates, nevertheless sings of events that actually
happened.
Homer can never have seen Ilium's Great Tower, the surrounding wall of
Poseidon and Apollo, the Scæan Gate of the palace of King Priam, for
all these monuments lay buried deep in heaps of rubbish, and he could have
made no excavations to bring them to light. He knew of these monuments only
from hearsay and tradition, for the tragic fate of ancient Troy was then
still in fresh remembrance, and had already been for centuries in the mouth
of all minstrels.

JULIUS CÆSAR

Commentaries on the Gallic
War

Caius Julius Cæsar was born on July 12, 100 B.C., of
a noble Roman family. His career was decided when he threw in his lot with
the democratic section against the republican oligarchy. Marrying Cornelia,
daughter of Lucius Cinna, the chief opponent of the tyrant dictator Sulla,
he incurred the implacable hatred of the latter, and was obliged to quit
Rome. For a season he studied rhetoric at Rhodes. Settling in Rome after
Sulla's death, Cæsar attached himself to the illustrious Pompey,
whose policy was then democratic. In B.C. 68 he obtained a quæstorship in
Spain, and on returning next year reconciled the two most powerful men in
Rome, Pompey and Crassus. With them he formed what became known as the
First Triumvirate. Being appointed to govern Gaul for five years,
Cæsar there developed his genius for war; but his brilliant success
excited the fears of the senate and the envy even of Pompey. Civil war
broke out. The conflict ended in the fall of Pompey, who was defeated in
the fateful battle of Pharsalia, and was afterwards murdered in Egypt.
Julius Cæsar now possessed supreme power. He lavished vast sums on
games and public buildings, won splendid victories in Gaul, Egypt, Pontus,
and Africa, and was the idol of the common people. But the jealousy of many
of the aristocrats led to the formation of a plot, and on March 15, 44
B.C., Cæsar was assassinated in the Senate House. This summary
relates to the commentaries known to be by Cæsar himself, certain
other books having been added by other Latin writers. It will be noticed
that he writes in the third person. This epitome is prepared from the Latin
text.

I.--Subduing Celtic Gaul

Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgæ inhabit; the
Aquitani another; those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours
Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs,
and laws. Among the Gauls the Helvetii surpass the rest in valour, as they
constantly contend in battle with the Germans. When Messala and Piso were
consuls, Orgetorix, the most distinguished of the Helvetii, formed a
conspiracy among the nobility, persuading them that, since they excelled
all in valour, it would be very easy to acquire the supremacy of the whole
of Gaul. They made great preparations for the expedition, but suddenly
Orgetorix died, nor was suspicion lacking that he committed suicide.
After his death, the Helvetii nevertheless attempted the exodus from
their territories. When it was reported to Cæsar that they were
attempting to make their route through our province, he gathered as great a
force as possible, and by forced marches arrived at Geneva.
The Helvetii now sent ambassadors to Cæsar, requesting permission
to pass through the province, which he refused, inasmuch as he remembered
that Lucius Cassius, the consul, had been slain and his army routed, and
made to pass under the yoke by the Helvetii. Disappointed in their hope,
the Helvetii attempted to force a passage across the Rhone, but, being
resisted by the soldier, desisted.
After the war with the Helvetii was concluded, ambassadors from almost
all parts of Gaul assembled to congratulate Cæsar, and to declare
that his victory had happened no less to the benefit of the land of Gaul
than of the Roman people, because the Helvetii had quitted their country
with the design of subduing the whole of Gaul.
When the assembly was dismissed, the chiefs' of the Ædui and of
the Sequani waited upon Cæsar to complain that Ariovistus, the king
of the Germans, had seized a third of their land, which was the best in
Gaul, and was now ordering them to depart from another third part.
To ambassadors sent by Cæsar, demanding an appointment of some
spot for a conference, Ariovistus gave an insolent reply, which was
repeated on a second overture. Hearing that the king of the Germans was
threatening to seize Vesontio, the capital of the Sequani, Cæsar, by
a forced march, arrived there and took possession of the city. Apprised of
this event, Ariovistus changed his attitude, and sent messengers intimating
that he agreed to meet Cæsar, as they were now nearer to each other,
and could meet without danger.
The conference took place, but it led to no successful result, for
Ariovistus demanded that the Romans should withdraw from Gaul and his
conduct became afterwards so hostile that it led to war. A battle took
place about fifty miles from the Rhine. The Germans were routed and fled to
the river, across which many escaped, the rest being slain in pursuit.
Cæsar, having concluded two very important wars in one campaign,
conducted his army into winter quarters.

II.--Taming the Rebellious Belgæ

While Cæsar was in winter quarters in Hither Gaul frequent reports
were brought to him that all the Belgæ were entering into a
confederacy against the Roman people, because they feared that, after all
Celtic Gaul was subdued, our army would be led against them. Cæsar,
alarmed, levied two new legions in Hither Gaul, and proceeded to the
territory of the Belgæ. As he arrived there unexpectedly, and sooner
than anyone anticipated, the Remi, who are the nearest of the Belgæ
to Celtic Gaul, sent messages of submission and gave Cæsar full
information about the other Belgæ.
Cæsar next learned that the Nervii, a savage and very brave
people, whose territories bordered those just conquered, had upbraided the
rest of the Belgæ who had surrendered themselves to the Roman people,
and had declared that they themselves would neither send ambassadors nor
accept any condition of peace. He was informed concerning them that they
allowed no access of any merchants, and that they suffered no wine and
other things tending to luxury to be imported, because they thought that by
their use the mind is enervated and the courage impaired.
After he had made three days' march into their territory, Cæsar
discovered that all the Nervii had stationed themselves on the other side
of the River Sambre, not more than ten miles from his camp, and that they
had persuaded the Atrebates and the Veromandui to join with them, and that
likewise the Aduatuci were expected by them, and were on the march. The
Roman army proceeded to encamp in front of the river, on a site sloping
towards it. Here they were fiercely attacked by the Nervii, the assault
being so sudden that Cæsar had to do all things at one time. The
standard as the sign to run to arms had to be displayed, the soldiers were
to be called from the works on the rampart, the order of battle was to be
formed, and a great part of these arrangements was prevented by the
shortness of time and the sudden charge of the enemy.
Time was lacking even for putting on helmets and uncovering shields. In
such an unfavorable state of affairs, various events of fortune followed.
The soldiers of the ninth and tenth legions speedily drove back the
Atrebates, who were breathless with running and fatigue. Many of them were
slain. In like manner the Veromandui were routed by the eighth and eleventh
legions; but as part of the camp was very exposed, the Nervii hastened in a
very close body, under Boduagnatus, their leader, to rush against that
quarter. Our horsemen and light-armed infantry were by the first assault
routed, and the enemy, rushing into our camp in great numbers, pressed hard
on the legions. But Cæsar, seizing a shield and encouraging the
soldiers, many of whose centurions had been slain, ordering them to extend
their companies that they might more freely use their swords.
So great a change was soon effected that, though the enemy displayed
great courage, the battle was ended so disastrously for them that the
Nervii were almost annihilated. Scarcely five hundred were left who could
bear arms. Their old men sent ambassadors to Cæsar by the consent of
all who remained, surrendering themselves. The Aduatuci, before mentioned,
who were coming to the help of the Nervii, returned home when they heard of
this battle.
All Gaul being now subdued, so high an opinion of this war was spread
among the barbarians that ambassadors were sent to Cæsar by those
nations that dwelt beyond the Rhine, to promise that they would give
hostages and execute his commands. He ordered these embassies to return to
him at the beginning of the following summer, because he was hastening into
Italy and Illyricum. Having led his legions into winter quarters among the
Carnutes, the Andes, and the Turones, which states were close to those in
which he had waged war, he set out for Italy, and a public thanksgiving of
fifteen days was decreed for these achievements, an honour which before
that time had been conferred on none.

III.--War by Land and Sea in Gaul

When Cæsar was setting out for Italy, he sent Servius Galba with
the twelfth legion and part of the cavalry against the Nantuates, the
Veragri, and the Seduni, who extend from the territories of the Allobroges
and the Lake of Geneva and the River Rhone to the top of the Alps. The
reason for sending him was that he desired that the pass along the Alps,
through which the Roman merchants had been accustomed to travel with great
danger, should be opened.
Galba fought several successful battles, stormed some of their forts,
and concluded a peace. He then determined to winter in a village of the
Veragri, which is called Octodurus. But before the winter camp could be
completed the tops of the mountains were seen to be crowded with armed men,
and soon these rushed down from all parts and discharged stones and darts
on the ramparts.
The fierce battle that followed lasted for more than six hours. During
the fight more than a third part of the army of 30,000 men of the Seduni
and the Veragri were slain, and the rest were put to flight,
panic-stricken. Then Galba, unwilling to tempt fortune again, after having
burned all the buildings in that village, hastened to return into the
province, urged chiefly by the want of corn and provision. As no enemy
opposed his march, he brought his forces safely into the country of the
Allobroges, and there wintered.
These things being achieved, Cæsar, who was visiting Illyricum to
gain a knowledge of that country, had every reason to suppose that Gaul was
reduced to a state of tranquillity. For the Belgæ had been overcome,
the Germans had been expelled, and the Seduni and the Veragri among the
Alps defeated. But a sudden war sprang up in Gaul.
The occasion of that war was this. P. Crassus, a young man, had taken up
his winter quarters with the seventh legion among the Andes, who border on
the Atlantic Ocean. As corn was scarce, he sent out officers among the
neighbouring states for the purpose of procuring supplies. The most
considerable of these states was the Veneti, who have a very great number
of ships with which they have been accustomed to sail into Britain, and
thus they excel the rest of the states in nautical affairs. With them arose
the beginning of the revolt.
The Veneti detained Silius and Velanius, who had been sent among them,
for they thought they should recover by their means the hostages which they
had given Crassus. The neighbouring people, the Essui and the
Curiosolitæ, led on by the influence of the Veneti (as the measures
of the Gauls are sudden and hasty) detained other officers for the same
motive. All the sea-coast being quickly brought over to the sentiments of
these states, they sent a common embassy to P. Crassus to say "If he wished
to receive back his officers, let him send back to them their
hostages."
Cæsar, being informed of these things, since he was himself so far
distant, ordered ships of war to be built on the River Loire; rowers to be
raised from the province; sailors and pilots to be provided. These matters
being quickly executed, he hastened to the army as soon as the season of
the year admitted.
Cæsar at once ordered his army, divided into several detachments,
to attack the towns of the enemy in different districts. Many were stormed,
yet much of the warfare was vain and much labour was lost, because the
Veneti, having numerous ships specially adapted for such a purpose, their
keels being flatter than those of our ships, could easily navigate the
shallows and estuaries, and thus their flight hither and thither could not
be prevented.
At length, in a naval fight, our fleet, being fully assembled, gained a
victory so signal that, by that one battle, the war with the Veneti and the
whole sea-coast was finished. Cæsar thought that severe punishment
should be inflicted, in order that for the future the rights of ambassadors
should be respected by barbarians; he therefore put to death all their
senate, and sold the rest for slaves.
About the same time P. Crassus arrived in Aquitania, which, as was
already said, is, both from its extent and its number of population, a
third part of Gaul. Here, a few years before, L. Valerius Præconius,
the lieutenant, had been killed and his army routed, so that Crassus
understood no ordinary care must be used. On his arrival being known, the
Sotiates assembled great forces, and the battle that followed was long and
vigorously contested. The Sotiates being routed, they retired to their
principal stronghold, but it was stormed, and they submitted. Crassus then
marched into the territories of the Vocates and the Tarusites, who raised a
great host of men to carry on the war, but suffered total defeat, after
which the greater part of Aquitania of its own accord surrendered to the
Romans, sending hostages of their own accord from different tribes. A few
only--and those remote nations--relying on the time of year, neglected to
do this.

IV.--The First Landing in Britain

The following winter, this being the year in which Cn. Pompey and M.
Crassus were consuls [this was the year 699 after the building of Rome, 55
before Christ; it was the fourth year of the Gallic war] the Germans,
called the Usipetes, and likewise the Tenchtheri, with a great number of
men, crossed the Rhine, not far from the place at which that river falls
into the sea. The motive was to escape from the Suevi, the largest and
strongest nation in Germany, by whom they had been for several years
harassed and hindered from agricultural pursuits.
The Suevi are said to possess a hundred cantons, from each of which they
send forth for war a thousand armed men yearly, the others remaining at
home, and going forth in their turn in other years.
Cæsar, hearing that various messages had been sent to them by the
Gauls (whose fickle disposition he knew) asking them to come forward from
the Rhine, and promising them all that they needed, set forward for the
army earlier in the year than usual. When he had arrived in the region, he
discovered that those things which he had suspected would occur, had taken
place, and that, allured by the hopes held out to them, the Germans were
then making excursions to greater distances, and had advanced to the
territories of the Euburones and the Condrusi, who are under the protection
of the Treviri. After summoning the chiefs of Gaul, Cæsar thought
proper to pretend ignorance of the things which he had discovered, and,
having conciliated and confirmed their minds, and ordered some cavalry to
be raised, resolved to make war against the Germans.
When he had advanced some distance, the Germans sent ambassadors,
begging him not to advance further, as they had come hither reluctantly,
having been expelled from their country. But Cæsar, knowing that they
wished for delay only to make further secret preparations, refused the
overtures. Marshalling his army in three lines, and marching eight miles,
he took them by surprise, and the Romans rushed their camp. Many of the
enemy were slain, the rest being either scattered or drowned in attempting
to escape by crossing the Meuse in the flight.
The conflict with the Germans being finished, Cæsar thought it
expedient to cross the Rhine. Since the Germans were so easily urged to go
into Gaul, he desired they should have fears for their own territories.
Therefore, notwithstanding the difficulty of constructing a bridge, owing
to the breadth, rapidity, and depth of the river, he devised and built one
of timber and of great strength, piles being first driven in on which to
erect it.
The army was led over into Germany, advanced some distance, and burnt
some villages of the hostile Sigambri, who had concealed themselves in the
woods after conveying away all their possessions. Then Cæsar, having
done enough to strike fear into the Germans and to serve both honour and
interest, after a stay of eighteen days across the Rhine, returned into
Gaul and cut down the bridge.
During the short part of the summer which remained he resolved to
proceed into Britain, because succours had been constantly furnished to the
Gauls from that country. He thought it expedient, if he only entered the
island, to see into the character of the people, and to gain knowledge of
their localities, harbours, and landing-places. Having collected about
eighty transport ships, he set sail with two legions in fair weather, and
the soldiers were attacked instantly on landing by the cavalry and
charioteers of the barbarians. The enemy were vanquished, but could not be
pursued, because the Roman horse had not been able to maintain their course
at sea and to reach the island. This alone was wanting to Cæsar's
accustomed success.

V.--Cæsar on the Thames

During the winter Cæsar commanded as many ships as possible to be
constructed, and the old repaired. About six hundred transports and twenty
ships of war were built, and, after settling some disputes in Gaul among
the chiefs, Cæsar went to Port Itius with the legions. He took with
him several of the leading chiefs of the Gauls, determined to retain them
as hostages and to keep them with him during his next expedition to
Britain, lest a commotion should arise in Gaul during his absence.
Cæsar, having crossed to the shore of Britain and disembarked his
army at a convenient spot advanced about twelve miles and repelled all
attacks of the cavalry and charioteers of the enemy. Then he led his forces
into the territories of Cassivellaunus to the River Thames, which river can
be forded in one place only. Here an engagement took place which resulted
in the flight of the Britons. But Cassivellaunus had sent messengers to the
four kings who reigned over Kent and the districts by the sea, Cingetorix,
Carvilius, Taximaquilus, and Segonax, commanding them to collect all their
forces and assail the naval camp.
In the battle which ensued the Romans were victorious, and when
Cassivellaunus heard of this disaster he sent ambassadors to Cæsar to
treat about a surrender. Cæsar, since he had resolved to pass the
winter on the continent, on account of sudden revolts in Gaul, demanded
hostages and prescribed what tribute Britain should pay each year to the
Roman people.
Cæsar, expecting for many reasons greater commotion in Gaul,
levied additional forces. He saw that war was being prepared on all sides,
that the Nervii, Aduatuci, and Menapii, with the addition of all the
Germans on this side of the Rhine, were under arms; that the Senones did
not assemble according to his command, and were concerting measures with
Carnutes and the neighbouring states; and that the Germans were importuned
by the Treviri in frequent embassies. Therefore he thought that he ought to
take prompt measures for the war.
Accordingly, before the winter was ended, he marched with four legions
unexpectedly into the territories of the Nervii, captured many men and much
cattle, wasted their lands, and forced them to surrender and give hostages.
He followed up his success by worsting the Senones, Carnutes, and Menapii,
while Labienus defeated the Treviri.
Gaul being tranquil, Cæsar, as he had determined, set out for
Italy to hold the provincial assizes. There he was informed of the decree
of the senate that all the youth of Italy should take the military oath,
and he determined to hold a levy throughout the entire province. The Gauls,
animated by the opportunity afforded through his absence, and indignant
that they were reduced beneath the dominion of Rome, began to organise
their plans for war openly.
Many of the nations confederated and selected as their commander
Vercingetorix, a young Avernian. On hearing what had happened, Cæsar
set out from Italy for Transalpine Gaul, and began the campaign by marching
into the country of the Helvii, although it was the severest time of the
year, and the country was covered with deep snow.
The armies met, and Vercingetorix sustained a series of losses at
Vellaunodunum, Genabum, and Noviodunum. The Gauls then threw a strong
garrison into Avaricum, which Cæsar besieged, and at length
Cæsar's soldiers took it by storm. All the Gauls, with few
exceptions, joined in the revolt; and the united forces, under
Vercingetorix, attacked the Roman army while it was marching into the
country of the Sequani, but they suffered complete defeat. After struggling
vainly to continue the war, Vercingetorix surrendered, and the Gallic
chieftains laid down their arms. Cæsar demanded a great number of
hostages, sent his lieutenants with various legions to different stations
in Gaul, and determined himself to winter at Bibracte. A supplication of
twenty days was decreed at Rome by the senate on hearing of these
successes.

TACITUS

Annals

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was born perhaps at Rome, shortly
before the accession of the Emperor Nero in 54 A.D. He married the daughter
of Agricola, famous in the history of Britain, and died probably about the
time of Hadrian's accession to the empire, 117 A.D. He attained distinction
as a pleader at the bar, and in public life; but his fame rests on his
historical works. A man of strong prepossessions and prejudices, he allowed
them to colour his narratives, and particularly his portraits; but he
cannot be charged with dishonesty. The portraits themselves are singularly
powerful; his narrative is picturesque, vivid, dramatic; but the condensed
character of his style and the pregnancy of his phrases make his work
occasionally obscure, and particularly difficult to render in translation.
His "Germania" is a most valuable record of the early institutions of the
Teutonic peoples. His "Histories" of the empire from Galba to Domitian are
valuable as dealing with events of which he was an eye-witness. His
"Annals," covering practically the reigns from Tiberius to Nero, open only
some forty years before his own birth. Of the original sixteen books, four
are lost, and four are incomplete. The following epitome has been specially
prepared from the Latin text.

I.--Emperor and Nephew

Tiberius, adopted son and actual stepson of Augustus, was summoned from
Illyria by his mother Livia to the bedside of the dying emperor at Nola.
Augustus left a granddaughter, Agrippina, who was married to Germanicus,
the nephew of Tiberius; and a grandson, Agrippa Postumus, a youth of evil
reputation. The succession of Tiberius was not in doubt; but his first act
was to have Agrippa Postumus put to death--according to his own statement,
by the order of Augustus. At Rome, consuls, senators, and knights hurried
to embrace their servitude. The nobler the name that each man bore, the
more zealous was he in his hypocrisy. The grave pretence of Tiberius that
he laid no claim to imperial honours was met by the grave pretence that the
needs of the state forbade his refusal of them, however reluctant he might
be. His mother, Livia Augusta, was the object of a like sycophancy. But the
world was not deceived by the solemn farce.
The death of Augustus, however, was the signal for mutinous outbreaks
among the legions on the European frontiers of the empire; first in
Pannonia, then in Germany. In Pannonia, the ostensible motive was jealousy
of the higher pay and easier terms of service of the Prætorian guard.
So violent were the men, and so completely did the officers lose control,
that Drusus, the son of Tiberius, was sent to make terms with the
mutineers, and only owed his success to the reaction caused by the
superstitious alarm of the soldiery at an eclipse of the moon. Germanicus,
who was in command in Germany, was absent in Gaul. Here the mutiny of the
Lower Army, under Cæcina, was very serious, because it was clearly
organised, the men working systematically and not haphazard.
News of the outbreak brought their popular general, Germanicus, to the
spot. The mutineers at once offered to make him emperor, a proposal which
he indignantly repudiated. The position, in a hostile country, made some
concession necessary; but fresh disturbances broke out when it was
suspected that the arrival of a commission from the senate meant that the
concessions would be cancelled. Here the reaction which broke down the
mutiny was caused by the shame of the soldiers themselves, when Germanicus
sent his wife and child away from a camp where their lives were in danger.
Of their own accord, the best of the soldiers turned on their former
ringleaders, and slew them. And the legions under Cæcina took similar
steps to recover their lost credit. Germanicus, however, saw that the true
remedy for the disaffection would be found in an active campaign. The
desired effect was attained by an expedition against the Marsi, conducted
with a success which Tiberius, at Rome, regarded with mixed feelings.
The German tribe named the Cherusci favoured Arminius, the determined
enemy of Rome, in preference to Segestes, who was conspicuous for "loyalty"
to Rome. Germanicus advanced to support the latter, and Arminius was
enraged by the news that his wife, the daughter of Segestes, was a
prisoner. His call to arms, his declamations in the name of liberty, roused
the Cherusci, the people who had annihilated the legions of Varus a few
years before. A column commanded by Cæcina was enticed by Arminius
into a swampy position, where it was in extreme danger, and a severe
engagement took place. The scheme of Arminius was to attack the Romans on
the march; fortunately, the rasher counsels of his uncle, Inguiomerus,
prevailed; an attempt was made to storm the camp, and the Romans were thus
enabled to inflict a decisive defeat on the foe.
It was at this time that the disastrous practice was instituted of
informers bringing charges of treason against prominent citizens on grounds
which Tiberius himself condemned as frivolous. The emperor began to make a
practice of attending trials, which indeed prevented corrupt awards, but
ruined freedom.
Now arose disturbances in the east. The Parthians expelled their king,
Vonones, a former favourite of Augustus. Armenia became involved, and these
things were the source of serious complications later. Tiberius was already
meditating the transfer of Germanicus to these regions. That general,
however, was planning a fresh German campaign from the North Sea coast. A
great fleet carried the army to the mouth of the Ems; thence Germanicus
marched to the Weser and crossed it. Germanicus was gratified to find that
his troops were eager for the impending fray. A tremendous defeat was
inflicted on the Cherusci, with little loss to the Romans. Arminius, who
had headed a charge which all but broke the Roman line, escaped only with
the utmost difficulty.
Nevertheless, the Germans rallied their forces, and a second furious
engagement took place, in which the foe fought again with desperate valour,
and were routed mainly through the superiority of the Roman armour and
discipline. The triumph was marred only by a disaster which befel the
legions which were withdrawn by sea. A terrific storm wrecked almost the
entire fleet, and it was with great difficulty that the few survivors were
rescued. The consequent revival of German hopes made it necessary for two
large armies to advance against the Marsi and the Catti respectively,
complete success again attending the Roman arms.
Jealousy of his nephew's popularity and success now caused Tiberius to
insist on his recall. At this time informers charged with treason a young
man of distinguished family, Libo Drusus, mainly on the ground of his
foolish consultation of astrologers, with the result that Drusus committed
suicide. This story will serve as one among many which exemplify the
prevalent demoralisation. In the same year occurred the audacious
insurrection of a slave who impersonated the dead Agrippa Postumus; and
also the deposition of the king of Cappadocia, whose kingdom was annexed as
a province of the empire.
A contest took place between the Suevi and the Cherusci, in which Rome
declined to intervene. Maroboduus, of the Suevi, was disliked because he
took the title of king, which was alien to the German ideas, being in this
respect contrasted with Arminius. The Cherusci had the better of the
encounter.

II.--The Development of Despotism

Germanicus on his recall was in danger, while in Rome, of being made the
head of a faction in antagonism to Drusus, the son of Tiberius. He was
dispatched, however, with extraordinary powers, to take control of the
East, where Piso, the governor of Syria, believed that he held his own
appointment precisely that he might be a thorn in the side of Germanicus.
The latter made a progress through Greece, settled affairs in Armenia and
Parthia, and continued his journey to Egypt.
Piso's machinations, encouraged by the reports which reached him of the
emperor's displeasure at the conduct of Germanicus, caused the gravest
friction. Finally, on the return from Egypt through Syria, Germanicus
became desperately ill. He declared his own belief that Piso and his wife
had poisoned him; and, on his death, the rumour met general credence,
though it was unsupported by evidence. Agrippina returned to Rome, bent on
vengeance, and the object of universal sympathy. Piso attempted to make
himself master of Syria, but failed to win over the legions, and then
resolved to return to Rome and defy his accusers.
About this time Arminius was killed in attempting to make himself king.
Shortly before, Tiberius had rejected with becoming dignity a rival chief's
offer to poison the national hero of German independence.
On the arrival in Italy of Agrippina with the ashes of Germanicus, the
popular and official expressions of grief and sympathy were almost
unprecedented. This public display was not at all encouraged by Tiberius
himself. Drusus was instructed to emphasize the fact that Piso must not be
held either guilty or innocent, till the case had been sifted. Tiberius
insisted that not he, but the senate, must be the judge; the case must be
decided on its merits, not out of consideration for his own outraged
feelings. Piso was charged with having corrupted the soldiery, levied war
on the province of Syria, and poisoned Germanicus. All except the last
charge were proved up to the hilt; for that alone there was no evidence.
Piso, however, despaired, fearing less the ebullitions of popular wrath
than the emotionless implacability of the emperor. He was found dead in his
room; but whether by his own act or that of Tiberius, was generally
doubted. The penalties imposed on his wife and son were mitigated by the
emperor himself.
A number of notorious scandals at this period emphasise the degradation
of morals and the disregard for the sanctity of the marriage tie in a
society where children were regarded as a burden, in spite of official
encouragement of the birth-rate. There was an instructive debate on a
proposal that magistrates appointed to provinces should not take their
wives with them.
Risings in Gaul of the Treveri and Aedui created much alarm in Rome; the
composure of Tiberius was justified by their decisive suppression.
In Africa, Blæms successfully suppressed, though he did not
finally curb, the brigand chief Tacfarinas, who had been building up a
nomad empire of his own. It was under Dolabella, the successor of
Blæms, that Tacfarinas was completely overthrown and slain.
Hitherto the rule of Tiberius had been, on the whole, prosperous. But
the ninth year marks the establishment of the ascendancy of Ælius
Sejanus over the mind of the emperor, whereby his sway was transformed into
a foul tyranny. Not of noble birth, Sejanus had neglected no means, however
base, to secure his own favour with Tiberius and with the Prætorian
Guard, of which he held the command. He was now determined to get rid of
Drusus, the son of Tiberius, as the most dangerous obstacle to his
ambitions. He accomplished his purpose by administering a poison, of which
the operation was unsuspected till the facts were revealed many years later
by an accomplice. Then the young sons of Germanicus became the accepted
representatives of the imperial line, for the infant sons of Drusus died
very shortly afterwards. Accordingly, Sejanus now directed his attacks
against the more powerful persons who might be regarded as partisans of the
house of Germanicus.
Despite the multiplications of prosecutions, it is to be noted that it
was still possible for a shrewd and tactful person, as exemplified by the
career of Marcus Lepidus, to uphold the principles of justice and liberty
without losing the favour of the emperor. Among other prosecutions, that of
Cremutius, whose crime was that of praising the memory of Brutus and
Cassius, demands attention, as the first of the kind.
The ambitions of Sejanus received a check when he had the presumption to
request Tiberius to grant him the hand of the widow of Drusus in marriage.
In order the more surely to bring disgrace on the house of Germanicus, he
now implanted in the mind of Agrippina a conviction that Tiberius intended
to poison her. That such suspicions were mere commonplaces of that terrible
time is well illustrated by the story. Incapable of hiding her feelings,
the persistent gloom of her face and voice, and her refusal of proffered
dishes as she sat near Tiberius at dinner, attracted his attention; to test
her, he personally commended and pressed on her some apples; this only
intensified her suspicions, and she gave them to the attendants untasted.
Tiberius made no open comment, but observed to his mother that it would
hardly be surprising should he contemplate harsh measures towards one who
obviously took him for a poisoner.

III.--Morbid Tyrant and Dotard

It was at this time that Tiberius withdrew himself from the capital, and
took up his residence at a country seat where hardly anyone had access to
him except Sejanus; whether at the favourite's suggestion or not is
uncertain. The retreat finally selected was the island of Capræ.
The monstrous lengths to which men of the highest rank were now prepared
to go to curry favour with Tiberius and Sejanus was exemplified in the ruin
of Sabinus, a loyal friend of the house of Germanicus. The unfortunate man
was tricked into speaking bitterly of Sejanus and Tiberius. Three senators
were actually hidden above the ceiling of the room where he was entrapped
into uttering unguarded phrases, and on this evidence he was condemned.
The death of the aged Livia Augusta removed the last check on the
influence of Sejanus.
[The account of his two years of unqualified supremacy, and of his
sudden and utter overthrow has been lost, two books of the "Annals" being
missing here.]
From this time, the life of Tiberius at Capræ was one of morbid
and nameless debauchery. The condition of his mind may be inferred from the
opening words of one of his letters to the senate. "If I know what to
write, how to write it, what not to write, may the gods and goddesses
destroy me with a worse misery than the death I feel myself dying daily."
The end came when Macro, the prefect of the Prætorians, who, to save
his own life and secure the succession of Gaius Cæsar Caligula, the
surviving son of Germanicus, caused the old emperor to be smothered.
[The record of the next ten years--the reign of Caligula, and the first
years of Claudius--is lost. When the story is taken up again, the wife of
Claudius, the infamous Messalina, was at the zenith of her evil
career.]
While the doting pedant Claudius was adding new letters to the alphabet,
Messalina was parading with utter shamelessness her last and fatal passion
for Silius, and went so far as publicly to marry her paramour. It was the
freedman Narcissus who made the outrageous truth known to Claudius, and
practically terrorised him into striking. Half measures were impossible; a
swarm of Messalina's accomplices in vice were put to death. To her,
Claudius showed signs of relenting; but Narcissus gave the orders for her
death without his knowledge. When they told Claudius that she was dead, he
displayed no emotion, but went on with his dinner, and apparently forgot
the whole matter.
A new wife had to be provided; Agrippina, the daughter of Germanicus,
niece of Claudius himself, and mother of the boy Domitius, who was to
become the emperor Nero, was the choice of the freedman Pallas, and proved
the successful candidate. Shortly after, her new husband adopted Nero
formally as his son. It was not long before she had assumed an air of
equality with her husband; and all men saw that she intended him to be
succeeded not by his own son Britannicus, but by hers, Nero.
Meanwhile, there had been a great revolt in Britain against the
proprætor Ostorius. First the Iceni took up arms, then the Brigantes;
then--a still more serious matter--the Silures, led by the most brilliant
of British warriors, Caractacus. Even his skill and courage, however, were
of no avail against the superior armament of the Roman legions; his forces
were broken up, and he himself, escaping to the Brigantes, was by them
betrayed to the Romans. The famous warrior was carried to Rome, where by
his dignified demeanour he won pardon and liberty. In the Far East,
Mithridates was overthrown by his nephew Rhadamistus, and Parthia and
Armenia remained in wild confusion. The reign of Claudius was brought to an
end by poison--the notorious Locusta was employed by Agrippina for the
purpose--and he was succeeded by Nero, to whom his mother's artifices gave
the priority over Britannicus.

IV.--The Infamies of Nero

At the outset the young emperor was guided by Seneca and Burrus; his
first speech--put into his mouth by Seneca, for he was no orator--was full
of promise. But he was encouraged in a passion for Acte, a freed-woman, by
way of counterpoise to the influence of his mother, Agrippina. The latter,
enraged at the dismissal of Pallas, threatened her son with the legitimate
claims of Britannicus, son of Claudius; Nero had the boy poisoned. In
terror now of his mother, he would have murdered her, but was checked by
Burrus. Nero's private excesses and debaucheries developed, while the
horrible system of delation flourished, and prosecutions for treason
abounded.
About this time the emperor's passion for Poppæa Sabina, the wife
of Otho, became the source of later disaster. Beautiful, brilliant, utterly
immoral, but complete mistress of her passions, she had married Nero's boon
companion. Otho was dispatched to Lusitania, and Poppæa remained at
Rome. Poppæa was bent on the imperial crown for herself, and urged
Nero against his mother. A mock reconciliation took place, but it was only
the preliminary to a treacherous plot for murdering the former empress. The
plot failed; her barge was sunk, but she escaped to shore. Nero, however,
with the shameful assent of Burrus and Seneca, dispatched assassins to
carry out the work, and Agrippina was slaughtered.
For a moment remorse seized Nero, but it was soon soothed; Burrus headed
the cringing congratulations of Roman society, to which Thrasea Pætus
was alone in refusing to be a party. The emperor forthwith began to plunge
into the wild extravagances on which his mother's life had been some check.
He took cover for his passion for chariot-driving and singing by inducing
men of noble birth to exhibit themselves in the arena; high-born ladies
acted in disreputable plays; the emperor himself posed as a mime, and
pretended to be a patron of poetry and philosophy. The wildest licence
prevailed, and there were those who ventured even to defend it.
About this time the Roman governor in Britain, Suetonius, crossed the
Menai Strait and conquered the island of Anglesea. But outrages committed
against Boadicea, queen of the Iceni, stirred that tribe to fierce revolt.
Being joined by the Trinobantes, they fell upon the Romans at Camulodunum
and massacred them. Suetonius, returning hastily from the west, found the
Roman population in panic. The troops, however, inspired by the general's
resolution, won a decisive victory, in which it is said that no fewer than
80,000 Britons, men and women, were slaughtered.
Not long after, Burrus died--in common belief, if not in actual fact, of
poison; and Seneca found himself driven into retirement, while Tigellinus
became Nero's favourite and confidant. Nero then capped his matricide by
suborning the same scoundrel who had murdered Agrippina to bring foul and
false charges against his innocent wife, Octavia; who was thus done to
death when not yet twenty, that her husband might be free to marry
Poppæa. As a matter of course, the crime was duly celebrated by a
public thanksgiving.
The dispatch of an incompetent general into Asia resulted in a most
inglorious Parthian campaign. Nero, however, was more interested first in
extravagant rejoicings at the birth of a daughter to Poppæa, and then
in equally extravagant mourning over the infant's death. It was well that
Corbulo, marching from Syria, restored the Roman prestige in the Far
East.
These events were followed by the famous fire which devastated Rome;
whether or no it was actually Nero's own work, rumour declared that he
appeared on a private stage while the conflagration was raging, and chanted
appropriately of the fall of Troy. He planned rebuilding on a magnificent
scale, and sought popularity by throwing the blame of the fire--and putting
to the most exquisite tortures--a class hated for their abominations,
called Christians, from their first leader, Christus, who had suffered the
extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the
reign of Tiberius.
A very widespread conspiracy was now formed against Nero, in favour of
one Gaius Calpurnius Piso; Fænius Rufus, an officer of the
Prætorians, who had been subordinated to Tigellinus, being one of the
leaders. The plot, however, was betrayed by a freedman of one of the
conspirators.

SALLUST

The Conspiracy of
Catiline

The Roman historian Caius Crispus Sallust, who was born at
Amiternum in 86 B.C., and died in 34 B.C., lived throughout the active
career of Julius Cæsar, and died while Anthony and Octavian were
still rivals for the supreme power. It might be supposed from his works
that he was a person of eminent virtue, but this was merely a literary
pose. He was probably driven into private life, in the first place, on
account of the scandals with which he was associated. He became a partisan
of Cæsar in the struggle with Pompey, and to this he owed the
pro-consulship of Numidia, on the proceeds of which he retired into
leisured ease. Sallust aspired with very limited success to assume the
mantle of Thucydides, and the rôle of a philosophic historian. He
displays considerable political acumen on occasion, but his assumption of
stern impartiality is hardly less a pose than his pretense of elevated
morality. His "Conspiracy of Catiline"--the first of his historical
essays--was probably written, in part at least, with the object of
dissociating Cæsar from it; the lurid colors in which he paints the
conspirator are probably exaggerated. But whether true or false, the
picture presented is a vivid one. This epitome is adapted specially from
the Latin text.

I.--The Plotting

I esteem the intellectual above the physical qualities of man; and the
task of the historian has attracted me because it taxes the writer's
abilities to the utmost Personal ambition had at first drawn me into public
life, but the political atmosphere, full of degradation and corruption, was
so uncongenial that I resolved to retire and devote myself to the
production of a series of historical studies, for which I felt myself to be
the better fitted by my freedom from the influences which bias the
political partisan. For the first of these studies I have selected the
conspiracy of Catiline.
Lucius Catilina [commonly called Catiline] was of high birth, richly
endowed both in mind and body, but of extreme depravity; with extraordinary
powers of endurance, reckless, crafty, and versatile, a master in the arts
of deception, at once grasping and lavish, unbridled in his passions, ready
of speech, but with little true insight Of insatiable and inordinate
ambitions, he was possessed, after Sulla's supremacy, with a craving to
grasp the control of the state, utterly careless of the means, so the end
were attained. Naturally headstrong, he was urged forward by his want of
money, the consciousness of his crimes, and the degradation of morals in a
society where luxury and greed ruled side by side.
The wildest, the most reckless, the most prodigal, the most criminal,
were readily drawn into the circle of Catiline's associates; in such a
circle those who were not already utterly depraved very soon became so
under the sinister and seductive influence of their leader. This man, who
in the pursuit of his own vices had done his own son to death, did not
hesitate to encourage his pupils in every species of crime; and with such
allies, and the aid of the disbanded Sullan soldiery swarming in Italy, he
dreamed of subverting the Roman state while her armies, under Gnæus
Pompeius, were far away.
The first step was to secure his own election as consul. One plot of his
had already failed, because Catiline himself had attempted to move
prematurely; but the conspirators remained scatheless. Those who were now
with Catiline included members of the oldest families and of equestrian
rank. Crassus himself was suspected of complicity, owing to his rivalry
with Pompeius. The assembled conspirators were addressed by Catiline in a
speech of the most virulent character. He urged these social outcasts to
rise against a bloated plutocracy battening on the ill-gotten wealth to
which his audience had just as good a title. He promised the cancellation
of all debts, the proscription of the wealthy, and the general application
of the rule of "the spoils to the victors." He had friends at the head of
the armies in Spain and Mauritania, if Gaius Antonius were the other
successful candidate for the consulship, his co-operation, too, could be
secured. Such was the purport of his speech; but I do not credit the
popular fiction that the conspirators were solemnly pledged in a bowl of
mingled wine and blood.
Rumours of the plot, however, began to leak out through a certain
Fulvia, mistress of Quintus Curio, a man who had been expelled from the
senatorial body on account of his iniquities; and this probably caused many
of the nobility to support, for the consulship, Cicero, whom, as a "new
man," they would otherwise have religiously opposed. The result was that
Catiline's candidature failed, and Cicero was elected with Gaius Antonius
for his colleague.
At length Cicero, seeing that the ferment was everywhere increasing to
an extent with which the ordinary law could not cope, obtained from the
senate the exceptional powers for dealing with a national emergency which
they had constitutional authority to grant. Thus, when news came that a
Catilinarian, Gaius Manlius, had risen in Etruria at the head of an armed
force, prompt administrative measures were taken to dispatch adequate
military forces to various parts of the country. Catiline himself had taken
no overt action; he now presented himself in the senate, was openly
assailed by Cicero, responded with insults which were interrupted by cries
of indignation, and flung from the house with the words "Since I am beset
by enemies and driven out, the fire you have kindled about me shall be
crushed out by the ruin of yourselves."
Seeing that delay would be fatal, he started at once for the camp of
Manlius, leaving Cethegus and Lentulus to keep up the ferment in Rome. To
several persons of position he sent letters announcing that he was retiring
to Marseilles; but, with misplaced confidence, he sent one of a different
and extremely compromising tenor to Quintus Catullus, which the recipient
read to the senate. It was next reported that he had assumed the consular
attributes and joined Manlius; whereupon he was proclaimed a public enemy,
a general levy was decreed, Antonius was appointed to take the field, while
Cicero was to remain in the capital.

II.--The Downfall

Meanwhile, Lentulus at Rome, among his various plots, intrigued to
obtain the support of the Allobroges, a tribe of Gauls from whom there was
at the time an embassy in Rome. The envoys, however, took the advice of
Quintus Fabius Sanga, and while he kept Cicero supplied with information,
themselves pretended to be at one with the conspirators.
Risings were now taking place all over Italy, though they were
ill-concerted. At Rome, the plan was that when Catiline's army was at
Fæsulæ, the tribune Lucius Bestia should publicly accuse Cicero of
having caused the war; and this was to be the signal for an organised
massacre, while the city itself was to be fired at twelve points
simultaneously. The insurgents were then to march out and join Catiline at
Fæsulæ.
The Allobroges were now departing, carrying with them letters from
Lentulus to Catiline; but according to a concerted plan, they were
arrested. This provided Cicero with evidence which warranted the arrest of
Lentulus and other ringleaders in Rome; and its publication created a
popular revulsion--the lower classes were not averse from plunder, but saw
no benefit to themselves in a general conflagration of Rome.
A certain Lucius Tarquinius was now captured, who gave information
tallying with what was already published, but further incriminated Crassus.
Crassus, however, was so wealthy, and had so many of the senate in his
power, that even those who believed the charge to be true, thought it
politic to pronounce it a gross fabrication. The danger of an attempted
rescue of Lentulus brought on a debate as to what should be done with the
prisoners. Cæsar, from whatever motive, spoke forcibly against any
unconstitutional action which, however justified by the enormity of the
prisoners' guilt, might become a dangerous precedent. In his opinion, the
wise course would be to confiscate the property of the prisoners, and to
place their persons in custody not in Rome, but in provincial towns.
Cæsar's humanitarian statesmanship was answered by the grave
austerity of Cato. "The question for us is not that of punishing a crime,
but of preserving the state--or of what the degenerate Roman of to-day
cares for more than the state, our lives and property. To speak of clemency
and compassion is an abuse of terms only too common, when vices are
habitually dignified with the names of virtues. Let us for once act with
vigour and decision, and doom these convicted traitors to the death they
deserve." The decree of death was carried to immediate execution. In the
meantime, Catiline had raised a force numbering two legions, but not more
than a quarter of them were properly armed. He remained in the hills,
refusing to give battle to Antonius.
On hearing the fate of Lentulus and the rest, he attempted to retreat to
Gaul, but this movement was anticipated and intercepted by Metellus Celer,
who was posted at Picenum with three legions. With Antonius pressing on his
rear, Catiline resolved to hazard all on a desperate engagement. In
exhorting his troops, he dwelt on the fact that men fighting for life and
liberty were more than a match for a foe who had infinitely less at
stake.
Thus brought to bay, Catiline's soldiers met the attack of the
government troops with furious valour, their leader setting a brilliant
example of desperate daring, and the most vigilant and vigorous
generalship. But Petreius, on the other side, directed his force against
the rebel centre, shattered it, and took the wings in flank. Catiline's
followers stood and fought till they fell, with their wounds in front; he
himself hewed his way through the foe, and was found still breathing at a
distance from his own ranks. No quarter was given or taken; and among the
rebels there were no survivors. In the triumphant army, all the stoutest
soldiers were slain or wounded; mourning and grief mingled with the elation
of victory.

EDWARD GIBBON

Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire--I

Edward Gibbon, son of a Hampshire gentleman, was born at
Putney, near London, April 27, 1737. After a preliminary education at
Westminster, and fourteen "unprofitable" months at Magdalen College,
Oxford, a whim to join the Roman church led to his banishment to Lausanne,
where he spent five years, and acquired a mastery of the French language,
formed his taste for literary expression, and settled his religious doubts
in a profound scepticism. He served some years in the militia, and was a
member of parliament. It was in 1764, while musing amidst, the ruins of the
Capitol of Rome, that the idea of writing "The Decline and Fall" of the
city first started into his mind. The vast work was completed in 1787. "A
Study in Literature," written in French, and his "Miscellaneous Works,"
published after his death, which include "The Memoirs of his Life and
Writings," complete the list of his literary labours. He died of dropsy on
January 16, 1794. The portion of the work which is epitomized here covers
the period from the reign of Commodus to the era of Charlemagne, and
includes the famous portion of the work dealing with the growth of the
Christian church.

I.--Rome, Mistress of the World

In the second century of the Christian era, the Empire of Rome
comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion
of mankind. On the death of Augustus, that emperor bequeathed, as a
valuable legacy to his successors, the advice of confining the empire
within those limits which nature seemed to have placed as its permanent
bulwarks and boundaries--on the west the Atlantic Ocean, the Rhine and
Danube on the north, the Euphrates on the east, and towards the south the
sandy deserts of Arabia and Africa. The subsequent settlement of Great
Britain and Dacia supplied the two exceptions to the precepts of Augustus,
if we omit the transient conquests of Trajan in the east, which were
renounced by Hadrian.
By maintaining the dignity of the empire, without attempting to enlarge
its limits, the early emperors caused the Roman name to be revered among
the most remote nations of the earth. The terror of their arms added weight
and dignity to their moderation. They preserved peace by a constant
preparation for war. The soldiers, though drawn from the meanest, and very
frequently from the most profligate, of mankind, and no longer, as in the
days of the ancient republic, recruited from Rome herself, were preserved
in their allegiance to the emperor, and their invincibility before the
enemy, by the influences of superstition, inflexible discipline, and the
hopes of reward. The peace establishment of the Roman army numbered some
375,000 men, divided into thirty legions, who were confined, not within the
walls of fortified cities, which the Romans considered as the refuge of
pusillanimity, but upon the confines of the empire; while 20,000 chosen
soldiers, distinguished by the titles of City Cohorts and Prætorian
Guards, watched over the safety of the monarch and the capitol.
"Wheresoever the Roman conquers he inhabits," was a very just
observation of Seneca. Colonies, composed for the most part of veteran
soldiers, were settled throughout the empire. Rich and prosperous cities,
adorned with magnificent temples and baths and other public buildings,
demonstrated at once the magnificence and majesty of the Roman system. In
Britain, York was the seat of government. London was already enriched by
commerce, and Bath was celebrated for the salutary effects of its medicinal
waters.
All the great cities were connected with each other, and with the
capital, by the public highway, which, issuing from the Forum of Rome,
traversed Italy, pervaded the provinces, and was terminated only by the
frontiers of the empire. This great chain of communications ran in a direct
line from city to city, and in its construction the Roman engineers snowed
little respect for the obstacles, either of nature or of private property.
Mountains were perforated and bold arches thrown over the broadest and most
rapid streams. The middle part of the road, raised into a terrace which
commanded the adjacent country, consisted of several strata of sand,
gravel, and cement, and was paved with granite or large stones. Distances
were accurately computed by milestones, and the establishment of
post-houses, at a distance of five or six miles, enabled a citizen to
travel with ease a hundred miles a day along the Roman roads.
This freedom of intercourse, which was established throughout the Roman
world, while it extended the vices, diffused likewise the improvements of
social life. Rude barbarians of Gaul laid aside their arms for the more
peaceful pursuits of agriculture. The cultivation of the earth produced
abundance in every portion of the empire, and accidental scarcity in any
single province was immediately relieved by the plentifulness of its more
fortunate neighbours. Since the productions of nature are the materials of
art, this flourishing condition of agriculture laid the foundation of
manufactures, which provided the luxurious Roman with those refinements of
conveniency, of elegance, and of splendour which his tastes demanded.
Commerce flourished, and the products of Egypt and the East were poured out
in the lap of Rome.
Though there still existed within the body of the Roman Empire an
unhappy condition of men who endured the weight, without sharing the
benefits of society, the position of a slave was greatly improved in the
progress of Roman development. The power of life and death was taken from
his master's hands and vested in the magistrate, to whom he had a right to
appeal against intolerable treatment. These magistrates exercised the
authority of the emperor and the senate in every quarter of the empire,
inflexibly maintaining in their administration, as in the case of military
government, the use of the Latin tongue. Greek was the natural idiom of
science, Latin that of government.

II.--The Seeds of Dissolution

But while Roman society persisted in a state of peaceful security, it
already contained within itself the seeds of dissolution. The long peace
and uniform government of the Romans introduced a slow and secret poison
into the vitals of the empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to
the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military
spirit evaporated. The citizens received laws and covenants from the will
of their sovereign, and trusted for their defence to a mercenary army. Of
their ancient freedom nothing remained except the name, and that Augustus,
sensible that mankind is governed by names, was careful to preserve.
It was by the will of the senate the emperor ruled. It was from the
senate that he received the ancient titles of the republic--of consul,
tribune, pontiff, and censor. Even his title of imperator was
decreed him, according to the custom of the republic, only for a period of
ten years. But this specious pretence, which was preserved until the last
days of the empire, did not mask the real autocratic authority of the
emperor. The fact that he nominated citizens to the senate was proof, if
proof were needed, that the independence of that body was destroyed; for
the principles of a free constitution are irrecoverably lost when the
legislative power is nominated by the executive.
Moreover, the dependence of the emperor on the legions completely
subverted the civil authority. To keep the military power, which had given
him his position, from undermining it, Augustus had summoned to his aid
whatever remained in the fierce minds of his soldiers of Roman prejudices,
and interposing the majesty of the senate between the emperor and the army,
boldly claimed their allegiance as the first magistrate of the republic.
During a period of 220 years, the dangers inherent to a military government
were in a great measure suspended by this artful system. The soldiers were
seldom roused to that fatal sense of their own strength and of the weakness
of the civil authority which afterwards was productive of such terrible
calamities.
The emperors Caligula and Domitian were assassinated in their palace by
their own domestics. The Roman world, it is true, was shaken by the events
that followed the death of Nero, when, in the space of eighteen months,
four princes perished by the sword. But, excepting this violent eruption of
military licence, the two centuries from Augustus to Commodus passed away
unstained with civil blood and undisturbed by revolution. The Roman
citizens might groan under the tyranny, from which they could not hope to
escape, of the unrelenting Tiberius, the furious Caligula, the profligate
and cruel Nero, the beastly Vitellius, and the timid, inhuman Domitian; but
order was maintained, and it was not until Commodus, the son of Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus, the philosopher, succeeded to the authority that his
father had exercised for the benefit of the Roman Empire that the army
fully realised, and did not fail to exercise, the power it had always
possessed.
During the first three years of his reign the vices of Commodus affected
the emperor rather than the state. While the young prince revelled in
licentious pleasures, the management of affairs remained in the hands of
his father's faithful councillors; but, in the year 183, the attempt of his
sister Lucilla to assassinate him produced fatal results. The assassin, in
attempting the deed, exclaimed, "The senate sends you this!" and though the
blow never reached the body of the emperor, the words sank deep into his
heart.
He turned upon the senate with relentless cruelty. The possession of
either wealth or virtue excited the tyrant's fury. Suspicion was equivalent
to proof; trial to condemnation, and the noblest blood of the senate was
poured out like water.
He has shed with impunity the noblest blood of Rome; he perished as soon
as he was dreaded by his own domestics. A cup of drugged wine, delivered by
his favourite concubine, plunged him in a deep sleep. At the instigation of
Lætus, his Prætorian prefect, a robust youth was admitted into
his chamber, and strangled him without resistance. With secrecy and
celerity the conspirators sought out Pertinax, the prefect of the city, an
ancient senator of consular rank, and persuaded him to accept the purple. A
large donative secured them the support of the Prætorian guard, and
the joyous senate eagerly bestowed upon the new Augustus all the titles of
imperial power.
For eighty-six days Pertinax ruled the empire with firmness and
moderation, but the strictness of the ancient discipline that he attempted
to restore in the army excited the hatred of the Prætorian guards,
and the new emperor was struck down on March 28, 193.

III.--An Empire at Auction

The Prætorians had violated the sanctity of the throne by the
atrocious murder of Pertinax; they dishonored the majesty of it with their
subsequent conduct. They ran out upon the ramparts of the city, and with a
loud voice proclaimed that the Roman world was to be disposed of to the
best bidder by public auction. Sulpicianus, father-in-law of Pertinax, and
Didius Julianus, bid against each other for the prize. It fell to Julian,
who offered upwards of £1,000 sterling to each of the soldiers, and
the author of this ignominious bargain received the insignia of the empire
and the acknowledgments of a trembling senate.
The news of this disgraceful auction was received by the legions of the
frontiers with surprise, with indignation, and, perhaps, with envy.
Albinus, governor of Britain, Niger, governor of Syria, and Septimius
Severus, a native of Africa, commander of the Pannonian army, prepared to
revenge the death of Pertinax, and to establish their own claims to the
vacant throne. Marching night and day, Severus crossed the Julian Alps,
swept aside the feeble defences of Julian, and put an end to a reign of
power which had lasted but sixty-six days, and had been purchased with such
immense treasure. Having secured the supreme authority, Severus turned his
arms against his two competitors, and within three years, and in the course
of two or three battles, established his position and brought about the
death of both Albinus and Niger.
The prosperity of Rome revived, and a profound peace reigned throughout
the world. At the same time, Severus was guilty of two acts which were
detrimental to the future interests of the republic. He relaxed the
discipline of the army, increased their pay beyond the example of former
times, re-established the Prætorian guards, who had been abolished
for their transaction with Julian, and welded more firmly the chains of
tyranny by filling the senate with his creatures. At the age of sixty-five
in the year 211, he expired at York of a disorder which was aggravated by
the labours of a campaign against the Caledonians.
Severus recommended concord to his sons, Caracalla and Geta, and his
sons to the army. The government of the civilised world was entrusted to
the hands of brothers who were implacable enemies. A latent civil war
brooded in the city, and hardly more than a year passed before the
assassins of Caracalla put an end to an impossible situation by murdering
Geta. Twenty thousand persons of both sexes suffered death under the vague
appellation of the friends of Geta. The fears of Macrinus, the controller
of the civil affairs of the Prætorian prefecture, brought about his
death in the neighbourhood of Carrhæ in Syria on April 8, 217.
For a little more than a year his successor governed the empire, but the
necessary step of reforming the army brought about his ruin. On June 7,
218, he succumbed to the superior fortune of Elagabulus, the grandson of
Severus, a youth trained in all the superstitions and vices of the
East.
Under this sovereign Rome was prostituted to the vilest vices of which
human nature is capable. The sum of his infamy was reached when the master
of the Roman world affected to copy the dress and manners of the female
sex. The shame and disgust of the soldiers resulted in his murder on March
10, 222, and the proclamation of his cousin, Alexander Severus.
Again the necessity of restoring discipline within the army led to the
ruin of the emperor, and, despite thirteen years of just and moderate
government, Alexander was murdered in his tent on March 19, 235, on the
banks of the Rhine, and Maximin, his chief lieutenant, a Thracian, reigned
in his stead.

IV.--Tyranny and Disaster

Fear of contempt, for his origin was mean and barbarian, made Maximin
one of the cruellest tyrants that ever oppressed the Roman world. During
the three years of his reign he disdained to visit either Rome or Italy,
but from the banks of the Rhine and the Danube oppressed the whole state,
and trampled on every principle of law and justice. The tyrant's avarice
ruined not only private citizens, but seized the municipal funds of the
cities, and stripped the very temples of their gold and silver
offerings.
Maximus and Balbinus, on July 9, 237, were declared emperors. The
Emperor Maximus advanced to meet the furious tyrant, but the stroke of
domestic conspiracy prevented the further eruption of civil war. Maximin
and his son were murdered by their disappointed troops in front of
Aquileia.
Three months later, Maximus and Balbinus, on July 15, 238, fell victims
to their own virtues at the hands of the Prætorian guard, Gordian
became emperor. At the end of six years, he, too, after an innocent and
virtuous reign, succumbed to the ambition of the prefect Philip, while
engaged in a war with Persia, and in March 244, the Roman world recognized
the sovereignty of an Arabian robber.
Returning to Rome, Philip celebrated the secular games, on the
accomplishment of the full period of a thousand years from the foundation
of Rome. From that date, which marked the fifth time that these rites had
been performed in the history of the city, for the next twenty years the
Roman world was afflicted by barbarous invaders and military tyrants, and
the ruined empire seemed to approach the last and fatal moment of its
dissolution. Six emperors in turn succeeded to the sceptre of Philip and
ended their lives, either as the victims of military licence, or in the
vain attempt to stay the triumphal eruption of the Goths and the Franks and
the Suevi. In three expeditions the Goths seized the Bosphorus, plundered
the cities of Bithynia, ravaged Greece, and threatened Italy, while the
Franks invaded Gaul, overran Spain and the provinces of Africa.
Some sparks of their ancient virtue enabled the senate to repulse the
Suevi, who threatened Rome herself, but the miseries of the empire were not
assuaged by this one triumph, and the successes of Sapor, king of Persia,
in the East, seemed to foreshadow the immediate downfall of Rome. Six
emperors and thirty tyrants attempted in vain to stay the course of
disaster. Famine and pestilence, tumults and disorders, and a great
diminution of the population marked this period, which ended with the death
of the Emperor Gallienus on March 20, 268.

V.--Restorers of the Roman World

The empire, which had been oppressed and almost destroyed by the
soldiers, the tyrants, and the barbarians, was saved by a series of great
princes, who derived their obscure origin from the martial provinces of
Illyricum. Within a period of about thirty years, Claudius, Aurelian,
Probus, Diocletian and his colleagues triumphed over the foreign and
domestic enemies of the state, re-established, with a military discipline,
the strength of the frontier, and deserved the glorious title of Restorers
of the Roman world.
Claudius gained a crushing victory over the Goths, whose discomfiture
was completed by disease in the year 269. And his successor, Aurelian, in a
reign of less than five years, put an end to the Gothic war, chastised the
Germans who invaded Italy, recovered Gaul, Spain, and Britain from the
Roman usurpers, and destroyed the proud monarchy which Zenobia, Queen of
Palmyra, had erected in the East on the ruins of the afflicted empire.
The murder of Aurelian in the East (January 275) led to a curious
revival of the authority of the senate. During an interregnum of eight
months the ancient assembly at Rome governed with the consent of the army,
and appeared to regain with the election of Tacitus, one of their members,
all their ancient prerogatives. Their authority expired, however, with the
death of his successor, Probus, who delivered the empire once more from the
invasions of the barbarians, and succumbed to the too common fate of
assassination in August 282.
Carus, who was elected in his place, maintained the reputation of the
Roman arms in the East; but his supposed death by lightning, by delivering
the sceptre into the hands of his sons Carinus and Numerian (December 25,
283), once more placed the Roman world at the mercy of profligacy and
licentiousness. A year later, the election of the Emperor Diocletian
(September 17, 284) founded a new era in the history and fortunes of the
empire.
It was the artful policy of Diocletian to destroy the last vestiges of
the ancient constitution. Dividing his unwieldly power among three other
associates--Maximian, a rough, brutal soldier, who ranked as Augustus; and
Galerius and Constantius, who bore the inferior titles of Cæsar--the
emperor removed the centre of government by gradual steps from Rome.
Diocletian and Maximian held their courts in the provinces, and the
authority of the senators was destroyed by spoliation and death.

VI.--Reign of the Six Emperors

For twenty-one years Diocletian held sway, establishing, with the
assistance of his associates, the might of the Roman arms in Britain,
Africa, Egypt, and Persia; and then, on May 1, 305, in a spacious plain in
the neighborhood of Nicomedia, divested himself of the purple and abdicated
the throne. On the same day at Milan, Maximian reluctantly made his
resignation of the imperial dignity.
According to the rules of the new constitution, Constantius and Galerius
assumed the title of Augustus, and nominated Maximin and Severus as
Cæsars. The elaborate machinery devised by Diocletian at once broke
down. Galerius, who was supported by Severus, intrigued for the possession
of the whole Roman world. Constantine, the son of Constantius, on account
of his popularity with the army and the people, excited his suspicion, and
only the flight of Constantine saved him from death. He made his way to
Gaul, and, after taking part in a campaign with his father against the
Caledonians, received the title of Augustus in the imperial palace at York
on the death of Constantius.
Civil war once more raged. Maxentius, the son of Maximian, was declared
Emperor of Rome, and, with the assistance of his father, who broke from his
retirement, defended his title against Severus, who was taken prisoner at
Ravenna and executed at Rome in February 307. Galerius, who had raised
Licinius to fill the post vacated by the death of Severus, invaded Italy to
reestablish his authority, but, after threatening Rome, was compelled to
retire.
There were now six emperors. Maximian and his son Maxentius and
Constantine in the West; in the East, Gelerius, Maximin, and Licinius. The
second resignation of Maximian, and his renewed attempt to seize the
imperial power by seducing the soldiers of Constantine, and his subsequent
execution at Marseilles in February 310, reduced the number to five.
Galerius died of a lingering disorder in the following year, and the civil
war that broke out between Maxentius and Constantine, culminating in a
battle near Rome in 312, placed the sceptre of the West in the hands of the
son of Constantius. In the East, the alliance between Licinius and Maximin
dissolved into discord, and the defeat of the latter on April 30, 313,
ended in his death three or four months later.
The empire was now divided between Constantine and Licinius, and the
ambition of the two princes rendered peace impossible. In the years 315 and
323 civil conflict broke out, ending, after the battle of Adrianople and
the siege of Byzantium, in a culminating victory for Constantine in the
field of Chrysopolis, in September. Licinius, taken prisoner, laid himself
and his purple at the feet of his lord and master, and was duly
executed.
By successive steps, from his first assuming the purple at York, to the
resignation of Licinius, Constantine had reached the undivided sovereignty
of the Roman world. His success contributed to the decline of the empire by
the expense of blood and treasure, and by the perpetual increase as well of
the taxes as of the military establishments. The foundation of
Constantinople and the establishment of the Christian religion were the
immediate and memorable consequences of this revolution.

Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire--II

I.--Decay of the Empire under Constantine

The unfortunate Licinius was the last rival who opposed the greatness of
Constantine. After a tranquil and prosperous reign, the conqueror
bequeathed to his family the inheritance of the Roman Empire; a new
capital, a new policy, and a new religion; and the innovations which he
established have been embraced, and consecrated, by succeeding
generations.
Byzantium, which, under the more august name of Constantinople, was
destined to preserve the shadow of the Roman power for nearly a thousand
years after it had been extinguished by Rome herself, was the site selected
for the new capital. Its boundary was traced by the emperor, and its
circumference measured some sixteen miles. In a general decay of the arts
no architect could be found worthy to decorate the new capital, and the
cities of Greece and Asia were despoiled of their most valuable ornaments
to supply this want of ability. In the course of eight or ten years the
city, with its beautiful forum, its circus, its imperial palace, its
theatres, baths, churches, and houses, was completed with more haste than
care. The dedication of the new Rome was performed with all due pomp and
ceremony, and a population was provided by the expedient of summoning some
of the wealthiest families in the empire to take up their residence within
its walls.
The gradual decay of Rome had eliminated that simplicity of manners
which was the just pride of the ancient republic. Under the autocratic
system of Diocletian, a hierarchy of dependents had sprung up. The rank of
each was marked with the most scrupulous exactness, and the purity of the
Latin language was debased by the invention of the deceitful titles of your
Sincerity, your Excellency, your Illustrious and Magnificent Highness.
The officials of the empire were divided into three classes of the
Illustrious, Respectable, and Honourable. The consuls were still annually
elected, but obtained the semblance of their ancient authority, not from
the suffrages of the people, but from the whim of the emperor. On the
morning of January 1 they assumed the ensigns of their dignity, and in the
two capitals of the empire they celebrated their promotion to office by the
annual games. As soon as they had discharged these customary duties, they
retired into the shade of private life, to enjoy, during the remainder of
the year, the undisturbed contemplation of their own greatness. Their names
served only as the legal date of the year in which they had filled the
chair of Marius and of Cicero. The ancient title of Patrician became now an
empty honour bestowed by the emperor. Four prefects held jurisdiction over
as many divisions of the empire, and two municipal prefects ruled Rome and
Constantinople. The proconsuls and vice-prefects belonged to the rank of
Respectable, and the provincial magistrates to the lower class of
Honourable. In the military system, eight master-generals exercised their
jurisdiction over the cavalry and the infantry, while thirty-five military
commanders, with the titles of counts and dukes, under their orders, held
sway in the provinces. The army itself was recruited with difficulty, for
such was the horror of the profession of a soldier which affected the minds
of the degenerate Romans that compulsory levies had frequently to be made.
The number of the barbarian auxiliaries enormously increased, and they were
included in the legions and the troops that surrounded the throne. Seven
ministers with the rank of Illustrious regulated the affairs of the palace,
and a host of official spies and torturers swelled the number of the
immediate followers of the sovereign.
The general tribute, or indiction, as it was called, was derived largely
from the taxation of landed property. Every fifteen years an accurate
census, or survey, was made of all lands, and the proprietor was compelled
to state the true facts of his affairs under oath, and paid his
contribution partly in gold and partly in kind. In addition to this land
tax there was a capitation tax on every branch of commercial industry, and
"free gifts" were exacted from the cities and provinces on the occasion of
any joyous event in the family of the emperor. The peculiar "free gift" of
the senate of Rome amounted to some $320,000.
Constantine celebrated the twentieth year of his reign at Rome in the
year 326. The glory of his triumph was marred by the execution, or murder,
of his son Crispus, whom he suspected of a conspiracy, and the reputation
of the emperor who established the Christian religion in the Roman world
was further stained by the death of his second wife, Fausta. With a
successful war against the Goths in 331, and the expulsion of the
Sarmatians in 334, his reign closed. He died at Nicomedia on May 22,
337.

II.--The Division of East and West

The unity of the empire was again destroyed by the three sons of
Constantine. A massacre of their kinsmen preceded the separation of the
Roman world between Constantius, Constans, and Constantine. Within three
years, civil war eliminated Constantine. The conflict among the emperors
resulted in a doubtful war with Persia, and the almost complete extinction
of the Christian monarchy which had been founded for fifty-six years in
Armenia.
Constantius was left sole emperor in 353. He associated with himself
successively as Cæsars the two nephews of the great Constantine,
Gallus and Julian. The first, being suspected, was destroyed in 354; the
second succeeded to the purple in 361.
Trained in the school of the philosophers, and proved as a commander in
a series of successful campaigns against the German hordes, Julian brought
to the throne a genius which, in other times, might have effected the
reformation of the empire. The sufferings of his youth had associated in a
mind susceptible of the most lively impressions the names of Christ and of
Constantius, the ideas of slavery and religion. At the age of twenty he
renounced the Christian faith, and boldly asserted the doctrines of
paganism. His accession to the supreme power filled the minds of the
Christians with horror and indignation. But instructed by history and
reflection, Julian extended to all the inhabitants of the Roman world the
benefits of a free and equal toleration, and the only hardship which he
inflicted on the Christians was to deprive them of the power of tormenting
their fellow subjects, whom they stigmatised with the odious titles of
idolaters and heretics.
While re-establishing and reforming the old pagan system and attempting
to subvert Christianity, he held out a hand of succour to the persecuted
Jews, asked to be permitted to pay his grateful vows in the holy city of
Jerusalem, and was only prevented from rebuilding the Temple by a supposed
preternatural interference. He suppressed the authority of George,
Archbishop of Alexandria, who had infamously persecuted and betrayed the
people under his spiritual care, and that odious priest, who has been
transformed by superstition into the renowned St. George of England, the
patron of arms, of chivalry, and of the Garter, fell a victim to the just
resentment of the Alexandrian multitude.
The Persian system of monarchy, introduced by Diocletian, was
distasteful to the philosophic mind of Julian; he refused the title of lord
and master, and attempted to restore in all its pristine simplicity the
ancient government of the republic. In a campaign against the Persians he
received a mortal wound, and died on June 26, 363.
The election of Jovian, the first of the domestics, by the acclamation
of the soldiers, resulted in a disgraceful peace with the Persians, which
aroused the anger and indignation of the Roman world, and the new emperor
hardly survived this act of weakness for nine months (February 17, 364).
The throne of the Roman world remained ten days without a master. At the
end of that period the civil and military powers of the empire solemnly
elected Valentinian as emperor at Nice in Bithynia.
The new Augustus divided the vast empire with his brother Valens, and
this division marked the final separation of the western and eastern
empires. This arrangement continued, until the death of Valentinian in 375,
when the western empire was divided between his sons, Gratian and
Valentinian II.
His reign had been notable for the stemming of the invasion of the
Alemanni of Gaul, the incursions of the Burgundians and the Saxons, the
restoration of Britain from the attacks of the Picts and Scots, the
recovery of Africa by the emperor's general, Theodosius, and the diplomatic
settlement with the approaching hordes of the Goths, who already swarmed
upon the frontiers of the empire.
Under the three emperors the Roman world began to feel more severely the
gradual pressure exerted by the hordes of barbarians that moved westward.
In 376 the Goths, pursued by the Huns, who had come from the steppes of
China into Europe, sought the protection of Valens, who succoured them by
transporting them over the Danube into Roman territory. They repaid his
clemency by uniting their arms with those of the Huns, and defeating and
killing him at the battle of Hadrianople in 378.
To save the provinces from the ravages of the barbarians, Gratian
appointed Theodosius, son of his father's general, emperor of the East, and
the wisdom of his choice was justified by the success of one who added a
new lustre to the title of Augustus. By prudent strategy, Theodosius
divided and defeated the Goths, and compelled them to submit.
The sons of Theodosius, Arcadius and Honorius succeeded respectively to
the government of the East and the West in 395. The symptoms of decay,
which not even the wise rule of Theodosius had been able to remove, had
grown more alarming. The luxury of the Romans was more shameless and
dissolute, and as the increasing depredations of the barbarians had checked
industry and diminished wealth, this profuse luxury must have been the
result of that indolent despair which enjoys the present hour and declines
the thoughts of futurity.
The secret and destructive poison of the age had affected the camps of
the legions. The infantry had laid aside their armour, and, discarding
their shields, advanced, trembling, to meet the cavalry of the Goths and
the arrows of the barbarians, who easily overwhelmed the naked soldiers, no
longer deserving the name of Romans. The enervated legionaries abandoned
their own and the public defence, and their pusillanimous indolence may be
considered the immediate cause of the downfall of the empire.

III.--Ruin by Goth, Vandal, and Hun

The genius of Rome expired with Theodosius. His sons within three months
had once more sharply divided the empire. At a time when the only hope of
delaying its ruin depended on the firm union of the two sections, the
subject of Arcadius and Honorius were instructed by their respective
masters to view each other in a hostile light, to rejoice in their mutual
calamity, and to embrace as their faithful allies the barbarians, whom they
incited to invade the territories of their countrymen.
Alarmed at the insecurity of Rome, Honorius about this time fixed the
imperial residence within the naturally fortified city of Ravenna--an
example which was afterwards imitated by his feeble successors, the Gothic
kings and the Exarchs; and till the middle of the eighth century Ravenna
was considered as the seat of government and the capital of Italy.
The reign of Arcadius in the East marked the complete division of the
Roman world. His subjects assumed the language and manners of Greeks, and
his form of government was a pure and simple monarchy. The name of the
Roman republic, which so long preserved a faint tradition of freedom, was
confined to the Latin provinces. A series of internal disputes, both civil
and religious, marked his career of power, and his reign may be regarded as
notable if only for the election of St. John Chrysostom to the head of the
church of Constantinople. Arcadius died in May 408, and was succeeded by
his supposed son, Theodosius, then a boy of seven, the reins of power being
first held by the prefect Anthemius, and afterwards by his sister
Pulcheria, who governed the eastern empire--in fact, for nearly forty
years.
The wisdom of Honorius, emperor of the West, in removing his capital to
Ravenna, was soon justified by events. Alaric, king of the Goths, advanced
in 408 to the gates of Rome, and completely blockaded the city. In the
course of a long siege, thousands of Romans died of plague and famine, and
only a heavy ransom, amounting to $1,575,000, relieved the citizens from
their terrible situation in the year 409. In the same year Alaric again
besieged Rome, after fruitless negotiations with Honorius, and his attempt
once more proving successful, he created Attilus, prefect of the city,
emperor. But the imprudent measures of his puppet sovereign exasperated
Alaric. Attilus was formally deposed in 410, and the infuriated Goth
besieged and sacked Rome, and ravaged Italy. The spoil that the barbarians
carried away with them comprised nearly all the movable wealth of the
city.
The ancient capital was devastated, the exquisite works of art
destroyed, and nearly all the monuments of a glorious past sacrificed to
the insatiate greed of the conquerors. Fire helped to complete the ruin
wrought by the Goths, and it is not easy to compute the multitude of
citizens who, from an honourable station and a prosperous fortune, were
suddenly reduced to the miserable condition of captives and exiles.
The complete ruin of Italy was prevented by the death of Alaric in
410.
During the reign of Honorius, the Goths, Burgundians, and Franks were
settled in Gaul. The maritime countries, between the Seine and the Loire,
followed the example of Britain in 409, and threw off the yoke of the
empire. Aquitaine, with its capital at Aries, received, under the title of
the seven provinces, the right of convening an annual assembly for the
management of its own affairs.
Honorius died in 423, and was succeeded by Valentinian III. His long
reign was marked by a series of disasters, which foretold the rapidly
approaching dissolution of the western empire.
Genseric, king of the Vandals, in 429 crossed into Africa, conquered the
province, and set up in the depopulated territory, with Carthage as his
capital, a new rule and government. Italy was filled with fugitives from
Africa, and a barbarian race, which had issued from the frozen regions of
the north, established their victorious reign over one of the fairest
provinces of the empire. Two years later, in 441, a new and even more
terrible danger threatened the empire.
The Goths and Vandals, flying before the Huns, had oppressed the western
World. The hordes of these barbarians, now gathering strength in their
union under their king, Attila, threatened an attack upon the eastern
empire. In appearance their chieftain was terrible in the extreme; his
portrait exhibits the genuine deformity of a modern Calmuck: a large head,
a swarthy complexion, small, deep-seated eyes, a flat nose, a few hairs in
the place of a beard, broad shoulders, and a short, square body of nervous
strength, though of a disproportionate form. He had a custom of fiercely
rolling his eyes, as if he wished to enjoy the terror which he
inspired.
This savage hero, who had subdued Germany and Scythia, and almost
exterminated the Burgundians of the Rhine, and had conquered Scandinavia,
was able to bring into the field 700,000 barbarians. An unsuccessful raid
into Persia induced him to turn his attention to the eastern empire, and
the enervated troops of Theodosius the Younger dissolved before the fury of
his onset. He ravaged up to the very gates of Constantinople, and only a
humiliating treaty preserved his dominion to the "invincible Augustus" of
the East.
After the death of Theodosius the Younger, and the accession of Marcian,
the husband of Pulcheria, Attila threatened, in 450, both empires. An
incursion of his hordes into Gaul was rendered abortive by the conduct of
the patrician, Ætius, who, uniting all the various troops of Gaul and
Germany, the Saxons, the Burgundians, the Franks, under their Merovingian
prince, and the Visigoths under their king, Theodoric, after two important
battles, induced the Huns to retreat from the field of Chalons. Attila,
diverted from his purpose, turned into Italy, and the citizens of the
various towns fled before the savage destroyer. Many families of Aquileia,
Padua, and the adjacent towns, found a safe refuge in the neighbouring
islands of the Adriatic, where their place of refuge evolved, in time, into
the famous Republic of Venice.
Valentinian fled from Ravenna to Rome, prepared to desert his people and
his empire. The fortitude of Ætius alone supported and preserved the
tottering state. Leo, Bishop of Rome, in his sacerdotal robes, dared to
demand the clemency of the savage king, and the intervention of St. Peter
and St. Paul is supposed to have induced Attila to retire beyond the
Danube, with the Princess Honoria as his bride. He did not long survive
this last campaign, and in 453 he died, and was buried amidst all the
savage pomp and grief of his subjects. His death resolved the bonds that
had united the various nations of which his subjects were composed, and in
a very few years domestic discord had extinguished the empire of the
Huns.
Genseric, king of the Vandals, sacked and pillaged the ancient capital
in June 455.
The vacant throne was filled by the nomination of Theodoric, king of the
Goths. The senate of Rome bitterly opposed the elevation of this stranger,
and though Avitus might have supported his title against the votes of an
unarmed assembly, he fell immediately he incurred the resentment of Count
Ricimer, one of the chief commanders of the barbarian troops who formed the
military defence of Italy. At a distance from his Gothic allies, he was
compelled to abdicate (October 16, 456), and Majorian was raised to fill
his place.

IV.--The Last Emperor of the West

The successor of Avitus was a great and heroic character, such as
sometimes arise in a degenerate age to vindicate the honour of the human
species. In the ruin of the Roman world he loved his people, sympathised
with their distress, and studied by judicial and effectual remedies to
allay their sufferings. He reformed the most intolerable grievances of the
taxes, attempted to restore and maintain the edifices of Rome, and to
establish a new and healthier moral code. His military abilities and his
fortune were not in proportion to his merits. An unsuccessful attempt
against the Vandals to recover the lost provinces of Africa resulted in the
loss of his fleet, and his return from this disastrous campaign terminated
his reign. He was deposed by Ricimer, and five days later died of a
reported dysentery, on August 7, 461.
At the command of Ricimer, the senate bestowed the imperial title on
Libius Severus, who reigned as long as it suited his patron. The increasing
difficulties, however, of the kingdom of Italy, due largely to the naval
depredation of the Vandals, compelled Ricimer to seek the assistance of the
emperor Leo, who had succeeded Marcian in the East in 457. Leo determined
to extirpate the tyranny of the Vandals, and solemnly invested Anthemius
with the diadem and purple of the West (467).
In 472, Ricimer raised the senator Olybrius to the purple, and,
advancing from Milan, entered and sacked Rome and murdered Anthemius (July
11, 472). Forty days after this calamitous event, the tyrant Ricimer died
of a painful disease, and two months later death also removed Olybrius.
The emperor Leo nominated Julius Nepos to the vacant throne. After
suppressing a rival in the person of Glycerius, Julius succumbed, in 475,
to a furious sedition of the barbarian confederates, who, under the command
of the patrician Orestes, marched from Rome to Ravenna. The troops would
have made Orestes emperor, but when he declined they consented to
acknowledge his son Augustulus as emperor of the West.
The ambition of the patrician might have seemed satisfied, but he soon
discovered, before the end of the first year, that he must either be the
slave or the victim of his barbarian mercenaries. The soldiers demanded a
third part of the land of Italy. Orestes rejected the audacious demand, and
his refusal was favourable to the ambition of Odoacer, a bold barbarian,
who assured his fellow-soldiers that if they dared to associate under his
command they might extort the justice that had been denied to their dutiful
petition. Orestes was executed, and Odoacer, resolving to abolish the
useless and expensive office of the emperor of the West, compelled the
unfortunate Augustulus to resign.
So ended, in the year 476, the empire of the West, and the last Roman
emperor lived out his life in retirement in the Lucullan villa on the
promontory of Misenum.

Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire--III

I.--The Growth of the Christian Church

The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned
religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and
by the habits of the superstitious part of their subjects. The various
modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by
the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; by the
magistrate as equally useful. Under this spirit of toleration the Christian
church grew with great rapidity. Five main causes effectually favoured and
assisted this development.
1. The inflexible and intolerant zeal of the Christians, purified from
the narrow and unsocial spirit of the Jewish religion.
2. The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional
circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important
theory.
3. The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive Church.
4. The pure and austere morals of the early Christians.
5. The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually
formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman
Empire.
The early Christians of the mother church at Jerusalem subscribed to the
Mosaic law, and the first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised
Jews. But the Gentile church rejected the intolerable weight of Mosaic
ceremonies, and at length refused to their more scrupulous brethren the
same toleration which at first they had humbly solicited for their own
practise. After the ruin of the temple of the city, and of the public
religion of the Jews, the Nazarenes, as the Christian Jews of Jerusalem
were called, retired to the little town of Pella, from whence they could
make easy and frequent pilgrimages to the Holy City. When the Emperor
Hadrian forbade the Jewish people from approaching the precincts of the
city, the Nazarenes escaped from the common proscription by disavowing the
Mosaic law. A small remnant, however, still combined the Mosaic ceremonies
with the Christian faith, and existed, until the fourth century, under the
name of Ebeonites.
The immortality of the soul had been held by a few sages of Greece and
Rome, who were unwilling to confound themselves with the beasts of the
field, or to suppose that a being for whose dignity they entertained the
most sincere admiration could be limited to a spot of earth, and to a few
years of duration. But reason could not justify the specious and noble
principles of the disciples of Plato.
To the Christians alone the authority of Christ gave a certainty of a
future life, and when the promise of eternal happiness was proposed to
mankind on condition of adopting the faith, and of observing the precepts
of the Gospel, it is no wonder that so advantageous an offer should have
been accepted by great numbers of every religion, of every rank, and of
every province in the Roman Empire. The immediate expectation of the second
coming of Christ, and the reign of the Son of God with His saints for a
thousand years, strengthened the ancient Christians against all trials and
sufferings.
The supernatural gifts which even in this life were ascribed to the
Christians above the rest of mankind must have conduced to their own
comfort, and very frequently to the conviction of infidels. The gift of
tongues, of vision, and of prophecy, the power of expelling demons, of
healing the sick, and of raising the dead, were prodigies claimed by the
Christian Church at the time of the apostles and their first disciples.
Repentance for their past sins, and the laudable desire of supporting
the reputation of the society in which they were engaged, rendered the
lives of the primitive Christians much purer and more austere than those of
their pagan contemporaries or their degenerate successors. They were
insistent in their condemnation of pleasure and luxury, and, in their
search after purity, were induced to approve reluctantly that institution
of marriage which they were compelled to tolerate. A state of celibacy was
regarded as the nearest approach to the divine perfection, and there were
in the primitive church a great number of persons devoted to the profession
of perpetual chastity.
The government of the primitive church was based on the principles of
freedom and equality. The societies which were instituted in the cities of
the Roman Empire were united only by the ties of faith and charity. The
want of discipline and human learning was supplied by the occasional
assistance of the "prophets "--men or women who, as often as they felt the
divine impulse, poured forth the effusions of the spirit in the assembly,
of the faithful. In the course of time bishops and presbyters exercised
solely the functions of legislation and spiritual guidance. A hundred years
after the death of the apostles, the bishop, acting as the president of the
presbyterial college, administered the sacrament and discipline of the
Church, managed the public funds, and determined all such differences as
the faithful were unwilling to expose before the tribunal of an idolatrous
judge.
Every society formed within itself a separate and independent republic,
and towards the end of the second century, realizing the advantages that
might result from a closer union of their interests and designs, these
little states adopted the useful institution of a provincial synod. The
bishops of the various churches met in the capital of the province at
stated periods, and issued their decrees or canons. The institution of
synods was so well suited to private ambition and to public interest that
it was received throughout the whole empire. A regular correspondence was
established between the provincial councils, which mutually communicated and
approved their respective proceedings, and the Catholic Church soon assumed
the form and acquired the strength of a great federative republic.
The community of goods which for a short time had been adopted in the
primitive church was gradually abolished, and a system of voluntary gifts
was substituted. In the time of the Emperor Decius it was the opinion of
the magistrates that the Christians of Rome were possessed of very
considerable wealth, and several laws, enacted with the same design as our
statutes of mortmain, forbade real estate being given or bequeathed to any
corporate body, without special sanctions. The bishops distributed these
revenues, exercised the right of exclusion or excommunication of
recalcitrant members of the Church, and maintained the dignity of their
office with ever increasing pomp and circumstance.

II.--The Days of Persecution

The persecution of Christians by the Roman emperors must at first sight
seem strange, when one considers their inoffensive mode of faith and
worship. When one remembers the scepticism that prevailed among the pagans,
and the tolerant view of all religions which was characteristic of the
Roman citizen in the early years of the empire, this harshness seems all
the more remarkable. It can be explained partly by the misapprehension
which existed in the mind of the pagan world as to the principles of the
Christian faith, and partly by the organization of the sect. The Jews were
allowed the exercise of their unsocial and exclusive faith. But the Jews
were a nation; the Christians were a sect. Moreover, the Christians were
regarded as apostates from the ancient faith of Moses, and, worshipping no
visible god, were held to be atheists.
The Roman policy also viewed with the utmost jealousy and distrust any
association among its subjects, and the secret and nocturnal meetings of
the Christians appeared peculiarly dangerous in the eyes of the law.
They were oppressed by the Emperor Domitian. Trajan protected their
meetings by requiring definite evidence of these illegal assemblies, and an
informer who failed in his proofs was subject to a severe or capital
penalty. But the edicts of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius protected the Church
from the danger of popular clamour in times of disaster, declaring that the
voice of the multitude should never be admitted as legal evidence to
convict or to punish those unfortunate persons who had embraced the
enthusiasm of the Christians.
The authority of Origen and Dionysius annihilates that formidable army
of martyrs, whose relics, drawn for the most part from the catacombs of
Rome, have replenished so many churches, and whose marvellous achievements
have been the subject of so many volumes of holy romance.
The martyrdom of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, on September 14, 258, was
one of the most notable of that period. Under Marcus Antoninus, the
Christians were treated harshly, but the tyrant Commodus protected them by
his leniency. After a temporary period of persecution during the reign of
Severus, the Christians enjoyed a calm from 211 to 249. The storms gathered
again under Decius, and so vigorous was the persecution that the bishops of
the most considerable cities were removed by exile or death.

III.--The Church under Constantine

From 284 to 303, during the reign of Diocletian, the Christian Church
enjoyed peace and prosperity, but in the latter year Galerius persuaded the
emperor to renew the persecution of the sect. An edict on February 24
enacted that all churches throughout the empire should be demolished, and
the punishment of death was pronounced against all who should presume to
hold any secret assemblies for the purposes of religious worship. Many
suffered martyrdom under this cruel enactment. Churches everywhere were
burnt, and sacred books destroyed. Three more edicts published before March
304 led to the imprisonment of all persons of the ecclesiastical order,
compelled the magistrates to exercise torture to subvert the religion of
their Christian prisoners, and made it the duty, as well as the interest,
of the imperial officers to discover, to pursue, and to torment the most
obnoxious among the faithful.
But after six years of persecution, the mind of Galerius, softened by
salutary reflection, induced him to attempt some reparation. In the edict
of toleration which he published on April 30, 311, he expresses the hope
"that our indulgence will engage the Christians to offer up their prayers
to the Deity whom they adore for our safety and prosperity, and for that of
the Republic."
The triumph of the great Constantine established the security of the
Christian Church from the attacks of the pagans. Converted in 306,
Constantine, as soon as he had achieved the conquest of Italy, issued the
Edict of Milan (313), declaring that the places of worship which had been
confiscated should be restored to the Church without dispute, without
delay, and without expense. Though himself never received by baptism into
the Church, until his last moments, his powerful patronage of the
Christians, and his edicts of toleration, removed all the temporal
disadvantages which had hitherto retarded the progress of Christianity.
The faith of Christ became the national religion of the empire. The
soldiers bore upon their helmets and upon their shields the sacred emblem
of the Cross. All the machinery of government was employed to propagate the
faith, not only within the empire, but beyond its borders. Confirmed in his
new religion by the miraculous vision of the Cross, Constantine, who was
the master of the world, consented to recognise the superiority of the
ecclesiastical orders in all spiritual matters, while retaining himself the
temporal power.
The persecution of heresy was carried out by Constantine with all the
ardour of a convert. An edict confiscated the public property of the
heretics to the use either of the revenue or the Catholic Church, and the
penal regulations of Diocletian against the Christians were now employed
against the schismatics. The Donatists, who maintained the apostolic
succession of Donatus, primate of Carthage, as opposed to Cæcilian,
were suppressed in Africa, and a general synod attempted to regulate the
faith of the Church.
The subject of the nature of the divine Trinity had early given rise to
discussion. Of the three main heretical views, that of Arius and his
disciples was the most prevalent. He held in effect that the Son, by whom
all things were made, though He had been begotten before all worlds, yet
had not always existed. He shone only with the reflected light of His
Almighty Father, and, like the sons of the Roman emperors, who were
invested with the titles of Cæsar or Augustus. He governed the
universe.
The Tritheists advocated a system which seemed to establish three
independent deities, while the Sabellian theory allowed only to the man
Jesus the inspiration of the divine wisdom. The consubstantiality of the
Father and of the Son had been established by the Council of Nicæa in
325, but the East ranged itself for the most part under the banner of the
Arian heresy. At first indifferent, Constantine at last persecuted the
Arians, who later, under Constantius, were received into favour.
Constantinople, which for forty years was the stronghold of Arianism,
was converted to the orthodox faith under Theodosius by Gregory
Nazianzen.

IV.--The Conversion of the World

The pagan religion was finally destroyed about the year 390, and the
faintest vestiges of it were not visible thirty years later. Its influence,
however, might be observed in many of the ceremonies which were introduced
into the Church, and the worship of martyrs and relics seemed to revive a
system of polytheism by the worship of a hierarchy of saints. Among the
most famous of the dignitaries of the Church at this period was the
Archbishop of Constantinople, who was distinguished by the epithet of
Chrysostom, or the Golden Mouth. He attempted to purify the eastern empire,
excited the animosity of the Empress Eudoxia, and died in exile in 407.
The monastic system had been founded by Antony, an illiterate youth, in
the year 305, by the establishment on Mount Cobyim, near the Red Sea, of a
colony of ascetics, who renounced all the business and pleasures in life as
the price of eternal happiness. A long series of hermits, monks, and
anachorets propagated the system and, patronised by Athanasius, it spread
to all parts of the world.
The monastic profession was an act of voluntary devotion, and the
inconstant fanatic was threatened with the eternal vengeance of the God
whom he deserted. The monks had to give a blind submission to the commands
of their abbot, however absurd, and the freedom of the mind, the source of
every generous and rational sentiment, was destroyed by the habits of
credulity and submission. In their dress and diet they preserved the most
rigorous simplicity, and they subsisted entirely by their own manual
exertions. But in the course of time this simplicity vanished, and,
enriched by the offerings of the faithful, they assumed the pride of
wealth, and at last indulged in the luxury of extravagance.
The conversion of the barbarians followed upon their invasion of the
Roman world; but they were involved in the Arian heresy, and from their
advocacy of that cause they were characterised by the name of heretics, an
epithet more odious than that of barbarian. The bitterness engendered by
this reproach confirmed them in their faith, and the Vandals in Africa
persecuted the orthodox Catholic with all the vigour and cruel arts of
religious tyranny.

Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire--IV

I.--Theodoric the Ostrogoth

After the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, an interval of fifty
years, until the memorable reign of Justinian, is faintly marked by the
obscure names and imperfect annals of Zeno, Anastasius, and Justin, who
successively ascended the throne of Constantinople. During the same period
Italy revived and nourished under the government of a Gothic king, who
might have deserved a statue among the best and bravest of the ancient
Romans.
Theodoric the Ostrogoth, the fourteenth in lineal descent of royal line
of the Amali, was born (455) in the neighbourhood of Vienna two years after
the death of Attila. The murmurs of the Goths, who complained that they
were exposed to intolerable hardships, determined Theodoric to attempt an
adventure worthy of his courage and ambition. He boldly demanded the
privilege of rescuing Italy and Rome from Odoacer, and at the head of his
people forced his way, between the years 488 and 489, through hostile
country into Italy. In three battles he triumphed over Odoacer, forced that
monarch to capitulate on favourable terms at Ravenna (493), and after
pretending to allow him to share his sovereignty of Italy, assassinated him
in the same year.
The long reign of Theodoric (493-526) was marked by a transient return
of peace and prosperity to Italy. His domestic and foreign policy were
dictated alike by wisdom and necessity. His people were settled on the
land, which they held by military tenure. A series of matrimonial alliances
secured him the support of the Franks, the Burgundians, the Visigoths, the
Vandals, and the Thuringians, and his sword preserved his territory from
the incursions of rival barbarians and the two disastrous attacks (505 and
508) that envy prompted the Emperor Anastasius to attempt.

II.--Justinian the Great

The death of the Emperor Anastasius had raised to the throne a Dardanian
peasant, who by his arts secured the suffrage of the guards, despoiled and
destroyed his more powerful rivals, and reigned under the name of Justin I.
from 518 to 527. He was succeeded by his nephew, the great Justinian, who
for thirty-eight years directed the fortunes of the Roman Empire.
The Empress Theodora, who before her marriage had been a theatrical
wanton, was seated, by the fondness of the emperor, on the throne as an
equal and independent colleague in the sovereignty. Her rapacity, her
cruelty, and her pride were the subject of contemporary writings, but her
benevolence to her less fortunate sisters, and her courage amidst the
factions and dangers of the court, justly entitle her to a certain nobility
of character.
Constantinople in the age of Justinian was torn by the factions of the
circus. The rival bands of charioteers, who wore respectively liveries of
green and blue, created in the capital of the East, as they had created in
Rome, two factions among the populace. Justinian's support of the blues led
to a serious sedition in the capital. The two factions were united by a
common desire for vengeance, and with the watchword of "Nika" (vanquish)
(January 532), raged in tumult through Constantinople for five days. At the
command of Theodora 3,000 veterans who could be trusted marched through the
burning streets to the Hippodrome, and there, supported by the repentant
blues, massacred the unresisting mob.
The Eastern Empire, after Rome was barbarous, still embraced the nations
whom she had conquered beyond the Adriatic, and as far as the frontiers of
Ethiopia and Persia. Justinian reigned over 64 provinces and 935 cities.
The arts and agriculture flourished under his rule, but the avarice and
profusion of Justinian oppressed the people. His expensive taste for
building almost exhausted the resources of the empire. Heavy custom tolls,
taxes on the food and industry of the poor, the exercise of intolerable
monopolies, were not excused or compensated for by the parsimonious saving
in the salaries of court officials, and even in the pay of the soldiers.
His stately edifices were cemented with the blood and treasures of his
people, and the rapacity and luxury of the emperor were imitated by the
civil magistrates and officials.
The schools of Athens, which still kept alight the sacred flame of the
ancient philosophy, were suppressed by Justinian. The academy of the
Platonics, the Lyceum of the Peripatetics, the Portico of the Stoics, and
the Garden of the Epicureans had long survived.
With the death of Simplicius and his six companions, who terminate the
long list of Grecian philosophers, the golden chain, as it was fondly
styled, of the Platonic succession was broken, and the Edict of Justinian
(529) imposed a perpetual silence on the schools of Athens.
The Roman consulship was also abolished by Justinian in 541; but this
office, the title of which admonished the Romans of their ancient freedom,
still lived in the minds of the people. They applauded the gracious
condescension of successive princes by whom it was assumed in the first
year of their reign, and three centuries elapsed after the death of
Justinian before that obsolete office, which had been suppressed by law,
could be abolished by custom.
The usurpation by Gelimer (530) of the Vandalic crown of Africa, which
belonged of right to Hilderic, first encouraged Justinian to undertake the
African war. Hilderic had granted toleration to the Catholics, and for this
reason was held in reproach by his Arian subjects. His compulsory
abdication afforded the emperor of the East an opportunity of interfering
in the cause of orthodoxy. A large army was entrusted to the command of
Belisarius, one of those heroic names which are familiar to every age and
to every nation. Proved in the Persian war, Belisarius was given unlimited
authority. He set sail from Constantinople with a fleet of six hundred
ships in June 533. He landed on the coast of Africa in September, defeated
the degenerate Vandals, reduced Carthage within a few days, utterly
vanquished Gelimer, and completed the conquest of the ancient Roman
province by 534. The Vandals in Africa fled beyond the power or even the
knowledge of the Romans.

III.--Gothic Italy

Dissensions in Italy excited the ambition of Justinian. Belisarius was
sent with another army to Sicily in 535, and after subduing that island and
suppressing a revolt in Africa, he invaded Italy in 536. Policy dictated
the retreat of the Goths, and Belisarius entered Rome (December 536). In
March, Vitiges, the Gothic ruler, returned with a force of one hundred and
fifty thousand men. The valour of the Roman general supported a siege of
forty-one days and the intrigues of the Pope Silverius, who was exiled by
his orders; and, finally, with the assistance of a seasonable
reinforcement, Belisarius compelled the barbarians to retire in March of
the following year. The conquests of Ravenna and the suppression of the
invasion of the Franks completed the subjugation of the Gothic kingdom by
December 539.
The success of Belisarius and the intrigues of his secret enemies had
excited the jealousy of Justinian. He was recalled, and the eunuch Narses
was sent to Italy, as a powerful rival, to oppose the interests of the
conqueror of Rome and Africa. The infidelity of Antonina, which excited her
husband's just indignation, was excused by the Empress Theodora, and her
powerful support was given to the wife of the last of the Roman heroes,
who, after serving again against the Persians, returned to the capital, to
be received not with honour and triumph, but with disgrace and contempt and
a fine of $600,000.
The incursions of the Lombards, the Slavonians, and the Avars and the
Turks, and the successful raids of the King of Persia were among the number
of the important events of the reign of Justinian. To maintain his position
in Africa and Italy taxed his resources to their utmost limit. The
victories of Justinian were pernicious to mankind; the desolation of Africa
was such that in many parts a stranger might wander whole days without
meeting the face of either a friend or an enemy.
The revolts of the Goths, under their king, Totila (541), once more
demanded the presence of Belisarius, and, a hero on the banks of the
Euphrates, a slave in the palace of Constantinople, he accepted with
reluctance the painful task of supporting his own reputation and retrieving
the faults of his successors. He was too late to save Rome from the Goths,
by whom it was taken in December 546; but he recovered it in the following
February. After his recall by his envious sovereign in September 548, Rome
was once more taken by the Goths. The successful repulse of the Franks and
Alemanni finally restored the kingdom to the rule of the emperor.
Belisarius died on March 13, 565.
The emperor survived his death only eight months, and passed away, in
the eighty-third year of his life and the thirty-eighth of his reign, on
November 14, 565. The most lasting memorial of his reign is to be found
neither in his victories nor his monuments, but in the immortal works of
the Code, the Pandects, and the Institutes, in which the civil
jurisprudence of the Romans was digested, and by means of which the public
reason of the Romans has been silently or studiously transfused into the
domestic institutions of the whole of Europe.

IV.--Gregory the Great

Justinian was succeeded by his nephew, Justin II., who lived to see the
conquest of the greater part of Italy by Alboin, king of the Lombards
(568-570), the disaffection of the exarch, Narses, and the ruin of the
revived glories of the Roman world.
During a period of 200 years Italy was unequally divided between the
king of the Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. Rome relapsed into a
state of misery. The Campania was reduced to the state of a dreary
wilderness. The stagnation of a deluge caused by the torrential swelling of
the Tiber produced a pestilential disease, and a stranger visiting Rome
might contemplate with horror the solitude of the city. Gregory the Great,
whose pontificate lasted from 590 to 604, reconciled the Arians of Italy
and Spain to the Catholic Church, conquered Britain in the name of the
Cross, and established his right to interfere in the management of the
episcopal provinces of Greece, Spain, and Gaul. The merits of Gregory were
treated by the Byzantine court with reproach and insult, but in the
attachment of a grateful people he found the purest reward of a citizen and
the best right of a sovereign.
The short and virtuous reign of Tiberius (578-582), which succeeded that
of Justin, made way for that of Maurice. For twenty years Maurice ruled
with honesty and honour. But the parsimony of the emperor, and his attempt
to cure the inveterate evil of a military despotism, led to his undoing,
and in 602 he was murdered with his children. A like fate befell the
Emperor Phocas, who succumbed in 610 to the fortunes of Heraclius, the son
of Crispus, exarch of Africa. For thirty-two years Heraclius ruled the
Roman world. In three campaigns he chastised the rising power of Persia,
drove the armies of Chosroes from Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, rescued
Constantinople from the joint siege of the Avars and Persians (626), and
finally reduced the Persian monarch to the defence of his hereditary
kingdom. The deposition and murder of Chosroes by his son Siroes (628)
concluded the successes of the emperor.
A treaty of peace was arranged, and Heraclius returned in triumph to
Constantinople, where, after the exploits of six glorious campaigns, he
peacefully enjoyed the sabbath of his toils. The year after his return he
made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to restore the true Cross to the Holy
Sepulchre. In the last eight years of his reign Heraclius lost to the Arabs
the same provinces which he had rescued from the Persians.
Heraclius died in 612. His descendants continued to fill the throne in
the persons of Constantine III. (641), Heracleonas (641), Constans II.
(641), Constantine IV. (668), Justinian II. (685), until 711, when an
interval of six years, divided into three reigns, made way for the rise of
the Isaurian dynasty.

V.--The New Era of Charlemagne

Leo III. ascended the throne on March 25, 718, and the purple descended
to his family, by the rights of heredity, for three generations. The
Isaurian dynasty is most notable for the part it played in ecclesiastical
history.
The introduction of images into the Christian Church had confused the
simplicity of religious worship. The education of Leo, his reason, perhaps
his intercourse with Jews and Arabs, had inspired him with a hatred of
images. By two edicts he proscribed the existence, as well as the use, of
religious pictures. This heresy of Leo and of his successors and
descendants, Constantine V. (741), Leo IV. (775), and Constantine VI.
(780), whose blinding by his mother Irene is one of the most tragic stories
of Roman history, justified the popes in rebelling against the authority of
the emperor, and in restoring and establishing the supremacy of Rome.
Gregory II. saved the city from the attacks of the Lombards, who had
seized Ravenna and extinguished the series of Greek exarchs in 751. He
secured the assistance of Pepin, and the real governor of the French
monarchy--Charles Martel, who, by his signal victory over the Saracens, had
saved Europe from the Mohammedan yoke. Twice--in 754 and 756--Pepin marched
to the relief of the city. His son Charlemagne, in 774, seemed to secure
the permanent safety of the ancient capital by the conquest of Lombardy,
and for twenty-six years he ruled the Romans as his subjects. The people
swore allegiance to his person and his family, and the elections of the
popes were examined and authorised by him. The senate exercised its rights
by proclaiming him patrician and of the power of the emperor; nothing was
lacking except the title.
A document, known as the Forged Decretals, which assigned the free and
perpetual sovereignty of Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West to the
popes by Constantine, was presented by Pope Hadrian I. to Charlemagne. This
document served to absolve the popes from their debt of gratitude to the
French monarch, and excused the revolt of Rome from the authority of the
eastern empire.
Though Constantinople returned, under Irene, to the employment of
images, and the seventh general council of Nicæa, September 24, 787,
pronounced the worship of the Greeks as agreeable to scripture and reason,
the division between the East and the West could not be avoided. The pope
was driven to revive the western empire in order to secure the gift of the
exarchy, to eradicate the claims of the Greeks, and to restore the majesty
of Rome from the debasement of a provincial town. The emperors of the West
would receive their crown from the successor of St. Peter, and the Roman
Church would require a zealous and respectable advocate.
Inspired by these motives, Pope Leo, who had nearly fallen a victim to a
conspiracy (788), and had been saved and reinstated by Charlemagne, took
the opportunity presented by the French king's visit to Rome to crown him
emperor. On the festival of Christmas (800), in the church of St. Peter,
Leo, after the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, suddenly placed a
precious crown on his head. The dome resounded with the acclamations of the
people, his head and body were consecrated with the royal unction, and he
was saluted, or adored, by the pontiff after the example of the
Cæsars.
Europe dates a new era from his restoration of the western empire.

THEODOR MOMMSEN

History of Rome

Theodor Mommsen was born at Garding in Schleswig on
November 30, 1817. He studied at Kiel University for three years, examined
Roman inscriptions in France and Italy from 1844 to 1847, and attained his
first professorship at Leipzig in 1848, and the Berlin Chair of Ancient
History in 1858. His greatest work was the "History of Rome," published in
1854, and its successor, the "Roman Provinces." On this work he brought to
bear a research and a scholarship of almost unparalleled range and
completeness. He was a man capable of vehement and occasionally
unreasonable partisanship, and a strict and cold-blooded impartiality would
have tempered the enthusiasm of some of his portraits and the severity of
others. These defects, however, are less obvious when his history is
condensed in small compass. There are cases in which his judgments are open
to adverse criticism. But at the present day it may safely be affirmed that
there is no extant history of Rome down to the establishment of the empire
which can be regarded as rivalling that here presented. Upwards of 900
separate publications remain as a monument of Mommsen's industry. He died
on November 1, 1903.

Iapygians, Etruscans, and Italians, the last certainly Indo-Europeans,
are the original stocks of Italy proper. Of the Italians there are two
divisions, the Latin and the Umbro-Sabellian. Central Italy was occupied by
the Latins, who were established in cantons formed of village groups; which
cantons at an early age formed themselves into the loose Latin League, with
Alba at its head.
The Roman canton, on both banks of the Tiber, concentrated itself on the
city earlier than others. The citizens consisted of the families which
constituted the larger groups of clans or gentes, formed into those tribes.
The remainder of the population were their dependents or slaves. At the
head of the family was the father, and the whole community had its king,
standing to it in the same relation as the father to the family. His power,
within the law, was absolute; but he could not override it or change it on
his own authority. This required the formal assent of the assembled
citizens. The heads of the clans formed a separate body--the Senate--which
controlled the appointment of the king, and could veto legislation.
By admission of aliens and absorption of other communities, swelling the
number of dependents, was gradually created a great body of plebeians,
non-citizens, who began to demand political rights; and whom it was
necessary to organise for military purposes which was done by the "Servian
Constitution." Gradually Rome won a supremacy in the Latin League, a
position of superiority over the aggregate of the other cantons.
In this community arose three political movements: (1) On the part of
the full citizen, patricii, to limit the power not of the state, but of the
kings; (2) of the non-citizens, to acquire political rights; (3) of
antagonism between the great landholders and the land-interests opposed to
them. The first resulted in the expulsion of the monarchs, and the
substitution of a dual kingship held for one year only. But in many
respects their joint power was curtailed as compared with that of the
monarch, while for emergencies they could appoint a temporary dictator. The
change increased the power of the General Assembly, to which it became
necessary to admit the non-citizen freeholders who were liable to military
duties. The life tenure of the members of the Senate greatly increased the
powers of that body, and intensified the antagonism of the patriarch and
the plebeians.
At the same time, a landed nobility was developing; and when fresh land
was acquired by the state, the Patricians claimed to control it. But the
great agricultural population could not submit to this process of land
absorption, and the consequent strife took the form of a demand for
political recognition, which issued in the appointment of Tribunes of the
Plebs, with power of administrative veto.
The struggle over privileges lasted for two hundred years. First the
Canuleian law made marriage valid between patricians and plebeians, and
instituted for a time military tribunes. The Licinian law, eighty years
later, admitted plebeians to the consulship, and also required the
employment of free labour in agriculture. The decisively democratic measure
was the Horticunian law, after another seventy years, giving the
exclusively plebeian assembly full legislative power. The practical effect
of the changes was to create a new aristocracy, semi-plebeian in origin,
and to reduce the personal power of the chief officers of state, while
somewhat increasing that of the remodelled Senate; rendering it a body
selfish indeed in internal matters, but essentially patriotic as well as
powerful.

I.--The Description of Italy

During the period of this long constitutional struggle, Rome and her
kinsfolk had first been engaged in a stubborn and ultimately successful
contest with the non-Aryan Etruscan race; and then Italy had been attacked
by the migrating Aryan hordes of the Celts, known as Gauls, who sacked
Rome, but retired to North Italy; events giving birth to many well-known
stories, probably in the main mythical. But the practical effect was to
impose a greater solidarity of the Latin and kindred races, and a more
decisive acceptance of Roman hegemony.
That hegemony, however, had to be established by persistent compulsion,
and there were three stages in its completion. First, the subjection of the
Latins and Campanians; then the struggle of Rome with the Umbrian-Samnites;
finally, the decisive repulse of the Epirote invader Pyrrhus--in effect a
Hellenic movement. The Roman supremacy established through the exhaustion
of the valiant Samnites required to be confirmed by stern repression of
attempts to recover liberty. But the Hellenic element in Italy,
antagonistic to the growing Roman power, in effect invited the intervention
of the Epirote chief. But his scheme was not that of an imperial statesman,
but of a chivalrous and romantic warrior. His own political blunders and
the iron determination of the Romans, destroyed his chances of conquest.
His retirement left Rome undisputed lord of Italy; which in part shared
full citizenship, in part possessed only the more restricted Latin rights,
and in part only rights conceded under varying treaties.
A sense of common Italian nationality was developing. But if Rome was
queen of Italy, Carthage was queen of the seas. Maritime expansion was
precluded, though Rome's position fitted her for it. Carthage was the one
Phoenician state which developed political as well as commercial power. The
commercial cities of North Africa were in subordination to her, in the
Western Mediterranean she had no rivals, her domestic government was
oligarchical.
Roman intervention in the affairs of Sicily, where Carthage was the
dominant power, produced the rupture between the two great states which was
bound to come sooner or later. Sicily itself was the scene of the initial
struggle, which taught Rome that her victories on land were liable to be
nullified by the Carthaginian sea power. She resolved to build a navy, on
the plan of adopting boarding tactics which would assimilate a naval
engagement to a battle on land. These tactics were successful enough to
equalise the fighting value of the respective fleets. The Romans were
enabled to land an invading army under Regulus in Africa.
Though superior on land, the general's blundering led to a disaster, and
for some time misfortune by sea and failure by land dogged the Romans. But
Carthage failed to use her opportunity; she did not attempt to strike a
crushing blow when she could have done so. But the private energy of Roman
patriots at last placed on the seas a fleet which once more turned the
scale, whereas it was on land that the brilliant Carthaginian Hamilcar had
displayed his genius and daring. The first Punic War gave Rome predominance
in Sicily, and a position of maritime equality. Sardinia was added to the
Roman dominion, and her provincial administration came into being.
She was carrying her expansion farther over Celtic regions, when
Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar, hurled himself against her, and came near to
destroying her. Hamilcar had conceived the idea of imperial expansion, and
given it shape by creating a dominion in Spain; he had looked forward to
the life-and-death struggle with Rome that was destined to his son; for
which Spain was to be the base. Hannibal, left in control in Spain,
deliberately challenged Rome to war.
The challenge was accepted, war was declared, and Hannibal accomplished
the amazing feat of leading an army of 60,000 men from Spain and effecting
the passage of the Alps, while the Romans were landing an army in Spain. In
a brilliant campaign, he defeated the stubborn Roman legions at
Vercellæ and the Trebia.
But success depended not on the winning of victories by an isolated
force, but on the disruption of Italy. His superiority in the field was
again demonstrated at Trasimenus, but no Italian allies came in. He
outwitted Fabius, and then utterly shattered at Cannæ a Roman force of
double his own numbers. For a moment it seemed that Italian cohesion was
weakening; but the Roman Senate and people were stirred only to a more
dogged resolution.
Cannæ failed to break up the Roman confederation. Generalship unaided
could accomplish no more. In Spain, where young Scipio was soon winning
renown, the Roman arms were in the ascendant, and in Sicily. No effective
aid was coming from Macedon, though war was declared between her and Rome.
Hannibal's activities began to be paralysed; by slow degrees he was forced
into the south. Hannibal succeeded in crossing the Alps with fresh forces,
but by a brilliant operation was annihilated on the Metaurus. The time had
come when Scipio could disregard Hannibal and strike at Carthage herself.
Even Hannibal's return could not save her. The victory of Zama decided the
issue. Carthage became virtually a tributary and subject state. Spain was a
Roman province, and North Africa a sort of protectorate.
The threatening extension of Macedonian power now demanded the
protecting intervention of Rome; an honest act of liberation for the
Greeks, but entailing presently the war with Antiochus of Syria. Antiochus
had left Phillip and Macedon in the lurch; now he sought to impose his own
yoke in place of theirs. The practical outcome was his decisive overthrow
at the battle of Magnesia, and the cession to Rome of Asia Minor. Pergamus,
under the house of Actalus, was established as a protected kingdom, as
Numidia under Masinissa had been. The Greek states, however, were becoming
conscious that their freedom was hardly more than a name; Perseus of
Macedon once more challenged Rome, not without Greek support. Macedon was
finally crushed by Aemilius Paullus at Pydna. From that moment, Rome
dropped the policy of maintaining free states beyond the seas, which had
manifestly failed. Virtually, the known world was divided into subjects and
dependencies of Rome, so vast was the change in the forty years between the
battles of the Metaurus and Pydna.
Rapid extension of dominion by conquest had demoralising results; the
ruling race was exposed to strong temptations in the provinces, and the
city remained the seat of government, while the best of the burgesses were
distributed elsewhere. Hence, the popular assembly became virtually the
city mob, while the ruling families tended more and more to form a close
and greedy and plutocratic oligarchy. The demoralisation was very
inadequately checked by the austerity of the censorship as exercised by
Cato.
In the provinces, the Spanish natives revolted, and were only repressed
after severe fighting. In Greece, Asia and Africa, the Roman rule gave
neither freedom nor strong government. In Africa, the disturbances led to
the wiping out of Carthage; in Greece to the complete subjection of the
dependent states; in the Far East, a new Parthian power arose under
Mithridates. The Mediterranean was allowed to be infested by pirates.
Revolution was at hand. Politics had become reduced to a process of
intrigue for office emoluments, involving a pandering to the city mob for
its suffrages.

II.--The Revolution

Socially, the most patent evil was the total disappearance of the free
agricultural class, the absorption of all the land into huge estates under
slave labour. The remedy proposed by Tiberius Gracchus was the partial
state resumption of land and its re-allotment. He adopted unconstitutional
methods for carrying his proposals, and was murdered in a riot led by the
oligarchs. Appeals to the Roman populace were not, unfortunately, appeals
to the Roman nation.
His brother, Gaius, deliberately designed a revolution. He proposed to
work through the antagonism of the aristocrats and the wealthy
non-senatorial equestrian order; and by concentrating power in the hands of
the tribunate, hitherto checked by the restrictions on re-election. In
effect, he meant to destroy the oligarchy by making the Tribune a perpetual
dictator, and thus to carry through social reforms; to establish also legal
equality first for the Italians, then for the provinces also. But these
reforms were not particularly attractive to the city mob, and the other
side could play the demagogue. The condition of Cæsarism is the
control of physical force; Gaius Gracchus fell because he had not that
essential control. The oligarchy remained supreme. The plans of Gracchus
for planting colonies and distributing allotments were nullified.
The evils of slave labour multiplied, and issued in servile
insurrections. In Numidia, the able Masimissa had been succeeded by
Micipsa. On Micipsa's death, the rule was usurped by his illegitimate
nephew Jugurtha, whose story has been told by Sallust. The war was at least
terminated less by the low-born general in command, Marius, than his
brilliant lieutenant Sulla. But Marius re-organised the army on the basis
which was to make a military despotism practicable, as it made a
professional instead of a citizen army.
But now a new foe appears; the first Teutonic (not Celtic) hordes of the
Cimbri and Teutones; to meet with an overwhelming check at the hands of
Marius at Aquæ Sextiæ and Vercellæ. The successful
soldier allied himself with the popular leader Saturninus; the programme of
Gaius Gracchus was resuscitated. But Marius, a political incapable,
separated from the demagogues, and by helping to crush them, effaced
himself. Livius Drusus attempted to carry out the Gracchan social reform,
with the senate instead of the tribunate as the controlling power; the
senatorial party themselves wrecked his schemes, and the antagonistic power
of the equestrian order was advanced.
But the immediate outcome was the revolt of the Italians, the
socii (whence the name social war). They were not citizens, not on
an equal footing with the citizens before the law. The revolt was
suppressed, but the legions were completely out of hand. The attempt of
Sulpicius to head the reform movement was answered by Sulla, who for the
first time led a Roman army against Rome, crushed Sulpicius, prescribed
some of his adherents, and placed the power of the senate on a stronger
footing by legal enactment. Then he went to the East, to conduct the war
against Mithridates.
While Sulla was conducting his operations, military and diplomatic, with
skill and success in the East, his arrangements at Rome had left discontent
and disappointment seething. There was another revolution, led by Cinna,
Marius and Sertorius; it mastered Rome. Marius spilt seas of blood, but
soon died. For three years Cinna was supreme, but he had no constructive
policy.
But now Sulla had finished his work in the East. He was returning at the
head of a body of veterans devoted to him; and his diplomacy won over half
Italy to his side. The struggle with the revolutionary government was not
greatly prolonged, and it was decisive.
In plain terms, the Roman constitution had gone utterly to wreck; Sulla
was in something of the same position as Oliver Cromwell. He had to
reconstruct under conditions which made a constitutional restoration
impracticable; but his control of the efficient military force gave him the
necessary power. That any system introduced must be arbitrary and find its
main sanction in physical force--that it should partake of terrorism--was
inevitable.
Sulla obtained the formal conferment on himself of absolute power. He
began by applying this rule of terror not vindictively, but with impersonal
mercilessness, against the lives and property of the opposition. In the
constitution which he promulgated the senatorial body was alone recognised
as a privileged class; the senate itself was increased, it recovered full
control of the judiciary and of legislation; no power was left of
cancelling membership. The tribunician power was curtailed.
The civil and military functions of consuls and prætors were separated.
They were to hold civil power in Italy proper during their year of office;
they were then to have a second year in military control of a province. The
planting of military colonies provided numerous garrisons whose interests
were associated with the new constitution. When Sulla had done his work, he
resigned his extraordinary powers with entire indifference. In a little
more than a year he died.
The Sullan constitution saved the Roman empire from imminent collapse;
but it was impossible that it should be more than a makeshift, like
Cromwell's protectorate. There were huge classes with perpetual grievances;
the removal of the military forces to the provinces left the city of Rome
without adequate governors of the provinces themselves. And there was no
man of the hour of supreme ability to carry on work demanding a master.

III.--Pompey and Cæsar

The young Graccus Pompeius was the most distinguished of the Sullan
party; Crassus was the wealthiest and most powerful of the Equestrian
group; Lepidus was the popular leader. A popular insurrection which he
headed was suppressed, and he disappeared, but Sertorius, once an associate
of Marius, had obtained a remarkable personal ascendancy in Spain, and, in
league with the Mediterranean pirates, threatened to be a formidable foe of
the new constitution. For some years he maintained a gradually waning
resistance against the arms of Pompeius, but finally was assassinated.
Meanwhile Tigranes, King of Armenia, had been developing a powerful
monarchy; and mutual distrust had brought on another war with Mithridates,
successfully conducted by Lucullus. Out of this war arose a struggle with
Tigranes, on whom an overwhelming defeat was inflicted at Tigranocerta. But
the brilliant achievements of Lucullus were nullified by the mutinous
conduct of the troops, and the factious conduct of the home government. The
gross inefficiency of that government was shown by the immense extension of
organised piracy, and by the famous slave revolt under Spartacus, which
seriously endangered the state.
Pompeius on his return from Spain was barred on technical grounds from
the triumph and the consulship which he demanded. He was thus driven into
an alliance with the democratic party, and with Crassus. The result was the
fall of the Sullan constitution, and the restoration of checks on the power
of the senate. Pompeius might have grasped a military despotism; he did
not, but he did receive extraordinary powers for dealing with the whole
Eastern question, and when that work was settled successfully, he would be
able to dictate his own terms.
Pompeius began his task by a swift and crushing blow against the pirate
cities and fleets, which broke up the organisation. He crushed Mithridates
in one campaign, and received the submission of Tigranes; Mithridates soon
after fell by his own hand, the victim of an insurrection. Anarchy in Syria
warranted Pompeius in annexing the Seleucid dominion. The whole of the
nearer East was now a part of the Roman empire; and was thenceforth ruled
not as protectorates, but as a group of provinces. Egypt alone was not
incorporated.
Meanwhile, the democratic party at Rome were dominant, though their
policy was inconsistent and opportunist. Probably the leading men, such as
Crassus and the rising Gaius, Julius Cæsar, stood aside from the
wilder schemes, such as the Catilinarian conspiracies, but secretly
fostered them. Catiline's projects were betrayed, and the illegal execution
of the captured conspirators by the consul Cicero was hailed by Cato and
the senatorial party as a triumph of patriotic statesmanship. Catiline
himself was crushed in the field.
The definite fact emerged, that neither the senatorial nor the
democratic party could establish a strong government; that would be
possible only for a military monarchy--a statesman with a policy and an
irresistible, force at his back. But Pompeius lacked the courage and skill.
Cæsar, as yet, lacked the military force. Pompeius, on his return
from the East, again allied himself with Crassus and Cæsar, whose
object was to acquire for himself the opportunity which Pompeius would not
grasp. The alliance gave Pompeius the land allotments he required for his
soldiers, and to Cæsar the consulship followed by a prolonged
governorship of Gaul.
The conquest and organisation of Gaul was an end in itself, a necessary
defence against barbarian pressure. Cæsar's operations there were
invaluable to the empire; incidentally, they enabled him to become master
of it. Cæsar has left his own record. Gaul was transformed into a
barrier against the Teutonic migration. But Pompeius, nominally holding a
far greater position, proved incapable of controlling the situation in
Rome; he could not even suppress the demagogue Clodius, while the prestige
of his military exploits was waning. Fear of the power of the Triumvirate
was driving moderate men to the senatorial part; that party, without an
efficient leader, began to find in Pompeius rather in ally against the more
dangerous Cæsar than an enemy.
But they would not concede him the powers he required; which might yet
be turned to the uses of his colleagues in the Triumvirate; he could not
afford to challenge Cæsar; and Cæsar adroitly used the
situation to secure for himself a prolongation of his Gallic command. The
completion of his work there was to have precedence of his personal
ambitions. Crassus was sent to the Eastern command; and Pompeius remained
in Italy, while nominally appointed to Spain.
Pompeius, indeed, attained a predominance in Rome which enabled him to
secure temporarily dictatorial powers which were employed to counteract the
electoral machinery of the republican party; but he had not the
qualifications or the inclination to play the demagogue, and could not
unite his aspirations as a restorer of law and order with effective party
leadership. Crassus disappeared; his armies in the East met with a complete
disaster at Carrhæ, and he took his own life. Cæsar and
Pompeius were left; Pompeius was not content that Cæsar should stand
on a real equality with him, and the inevitable rupture came.
In effect Pompeius used his dictatorship to extend his own military
command and to curtail Cæsar's. The position resolved itself into a
rivalry between the two; Cæsar declaring as always for the democracy,
Pompeius now assuming the championship of the aristocracy, and the
guardianship of the constitution.
For Cæsar the vital point now was that his own command should not
terminate till he exchanged it for a fresh consulship. As the law now
stood, he could not obtain his election without resigning his command
beforehand. But he succeeded in forcing Pompeius to break the law; and in
making the official government responsible for declaring war. He offered a
compromise, perhaps, in the certainty that it would be rejected--as it was.
He was virtually declared a public enemy; and he struck at once.
At the head of his devotedly loyal veterans he crossed the Rubicon. His
rapid and successful advance caused Pompeius to abandon Italy and fall back
on the Eastern Provinces. The discipline preserved, and the moderation
displayed by Cæsar won him unexpected favour. Having secured Italy,
he turned next on Spain, and secured that. Swift and decisive action was
pitted against inertness. When Cæsar entered Epirus the odds against
him on paper were enormous; but the triumphant victory of Phansalus
shattered the Pompeian coalition. Pompeius hurried to Egypt, but was
assassinated while landing. The struggle, however, was not over till after
the battle of Thapsus nearly two years after Phansalus.
Cæsar was now beyond question master of the whole Roman world. He
had made himself one of the mightiest of all masters of the art of war; but
he was even more emphatically unsurpassed as a statesman. In the brief time
that was left him he laid the foundation of the new monarchy which replaced
the ancient Republic of Rome.

Mediæval History

EDWARD GIBBON

The Holy Roman Empire

The third of Gibbon's divisions of his great history was
devoted to that period which is comprised between the establishment of the
Holy Roman Empire in 800 and the final extinction of the Eastern Empire
with the conquest of Constantinople by Mahomet II. in 1453. Although this
was the longest period, Gibbon devoted much less space to it than to the
preceding parts of his history. This fact was partly due to the gradual
diminution of Roman interests, for the dominions of the empire became
contracted to the limits of a single city, and also to the fact that the
material which the most painstaking search placed at his disposal was
distinctly limited. But though the conquest of the Normans, to instance one
section, has been dealt with inadequately in the light of modern research,
the wonderful panorama that Gibbon's genius was able to present never fails
in its effect or general accuracy. The Holy Roman Empire is, of course,
properly classified under Mediæval History, which accounts for its
separation from the rest of Gibbon's work.

I.--Birth and Sway of the Empire

The Western Empire, or Holy Roman Empire, as it has been called, which
was re-established by Charlemagne (and lasted in shadow until the
abdication of Francis II. under the pressure of Napoleon in 1806), was not
unworthy of its title.
The personal and political importance of Charlemagne was magnified by
the distress and division of the rest of Europe. The Greek emperor was
addressed by him as brother instead of father; and as long as the imperial
dignity of the West was usurped by a hero, the Greeks respectfully saluted
the august Charlemagne with the acclamations of "Basileus" and
"Emperor of the Romans." Lewis the Pious (814-840) possessed the virtue of
his father but not the power. When both power and virtue were extinct, the
Greeks despoiled Lewis II. of his hereditary title, and with the barbarous
appellation of Rex degraded him amongst the crowd of Latin
princes.
The imperial title of the West remained in the family of Charlemagne
until the deposition of Charles the Fat in 884. His insanity dissolved the
empire into factions, and it was not until Otho, King of Germany, laid
claim to the title, with fire and sword, that the western empire was
restored (962). His conquest of Italy and delivery of the pope for ever
fixed the imperial crown in the name and nation of Germany. From that
memorable era two maxims of public jurisprudence were introduced by force
and ratified by time: (1) That the prince who was elected in the German
Diet acquired from that instant the subject kingdoms of Italy and Rome; (2)
but that he might not legally assume the titles of Emperor and Augustus
till he had received the crown from the hands of the Roman pontiff.
The nominal power of the Western emperors was considerable. No pontiff
could be legally consecrated till the emperor, the advocate of the Church,
had graciously signified his approbation and consent. Gregory VII., in
1073, usurped this power, and fixed for ever in the college of cardinals
the freedom and independence of election. Nominally, also, the emperors
held sway in Rome, but this supremacy was annihilated in the thirteenth
century. In the fourteenth century the power derived from his title was
still recognised in Europe; the hereditary monarchs confessed the
pre-eminence of his rank and dignity.
The persecution of images and their votaries in the East had
separated-Rome and Italy from the Byzantine throne, and prepared the way
for the conquests of the Franks. The rise and triumph of the Mahometans
still further diminished the empire of the East. The successful inroads of
the Bulgarians, Hungarians, and Russians, who assaulted by sea or by land
the provinces and the capital, seemed to advance the approach of its final
dissolution. The Norman adventurers, who founded a powerful kingdom in
Apulia and Sicily, shook the throne of Constantinople (1146), and their
hostile enterprises did not cease until the year 1185.

II.--Latin Rulers of Constantinople

Under the name of the Latins, the subjects of the pope, the nations of
the West, enlisted under the banner of the Cross for the recovery or the
release of the Holy Sepulchre. The Greek emperors were terrified and
preserved by the myriads of pilgrims who marched to Jerusalem with Godfrey
of Bouillon (1095-99) and the peers of Christendom. The second (1147) and
the third (1189) crusades trod in the footsteps of the first. Asia and
Europe were mingled in a sacred war of two hundred years; and the Christian
powers were bravely resisted and finally expelled (1291) by Saladin
(1171-93) and the Mamelukes of Egypt.
In these memorable crusades a fleet and army of French and Venetians
were diverted from Syria to the Thracian Bosphorus; they assaulted the
capital (1203), they subverted the Greek monarchy; and a dynasty of Latin
princes was seated near three-score years on the throne of Constantine.
During this period of captivity and exile, which lasted from 1204 to
1261, the purple was preserved by a succession of four monarchs, who
maintained their title as the heirs of Augustus, though outcasts from their
capital. The de facto sovereigns of Constantinople during this
period, the Latin emperors of the houses of Flanders and Courtenay,
provided five sovereigns for the usurped throne. By an agreement between
the allied conquerors, the emperor of the East was nominated by the vote of
twelve electors, chosen equally from the French and Venetians. To him, with
all the titles and prerogatives of the Byzantine throne, a fourth part of
the Greek monarchy was assigned; the remaining portions were equally snared
between the republic of Venice and the barons of France.
Under this agreement, Baldwin, Count of Flanders and Hainault, was
created emperor (1204-05). The idea of the Roman system, which, despite the
passage of centuries devoted to the triumphs of the barbarians, had
impressed itself on Europe, was seen in the emperor's letter to the Roman
pontiff, in which he congratulated him on the restoration of his authority
in the East.
The defeat and captivity of Baldwin in a war against the Bulgarians, and
his subsequent death, placed the crown on the head of his brother Henry
(1205-16). With him the imperial house of Flanders became extinct, and
Peter of Courtenay, Count of Auxerre (1217-19), assumed the empire of the
East. Peter was taken captive by Theodore, the legitimate sovereign of
Constantinople, and his sons Robert (1221-28) and Baldwin II. (1228-37)
reigned in succession. The gradual recovery of their empire by the
legitimate sovereigns of the East culminated in the capture of
Constantinople by the Greeks (1261). The line of Latin sovereigns was
extinct. Baldwin lived the remainder of his life a royal fugitive,
soliciting the Catholic powers to join in his restoration. He died in
1272.
From the days of the Emperor Heraclius the Byzantine Empire had been
most tranquil and prosperous when it could acquiesce in hereditary
succession. Five dynasties--the Heraclian, Isaurian, Amorian, Basilian, and
Comnenian families--enjoyed and transmitted the royal patrimony during
their respective series of five, four, three, six, and four generations.
The imperial house of Comnenius, though its direct line in male descent had
expired with Andronicus I. (1185), had been perpetuated by marriage in the
female line, and had survived the exile from Constantinople, in the persons
of the descendants of Theodore Lascaris.
Michael Palæologus, who, through his mother, might claim perhaps a
prior right to the throne of the Comnenii, usurped the imperial dignity on
the recovery of Constantinople, cruelly blinded the young Emperor John, the
legitimate heir of Theodore Lascaris, and reigned until 1282. His career of
authority was notable for an attempt to unite the Greek and Roman
churches--a union which was dissolved in 1283--and his instigation of the
revolt in Sicily, which ended in the famous Sicilian Vespers (March 30,
1282), when 8,000 French were exterminated in a promiscuous massacre.
He saved his empire by involving the kingdoms of the West in rebellion
and blood. From these seeds of discord uprose a generation of iron men, who
assaulted and endangered the empire of his son, Andronicus the Elder
(1282-1332). Thousands of Genoese and Catalans, released from the wars that
Michael had aroused in the West, took service under his successor against
the Turks. Other mercenaries flocked to their standard, and, under the name
of the Great Company, they subverted the authority of the emperor, defeated
his troops, laid waste his territory, united themselves with his enemies,
and, finally, abandoning the banks of the Hellespont, marched into Greece.
Here they overthrew the remnant of the Latin power, and for fourteen years
(1311-1326) the Great Company was the terror of the Grecian states.
Their factions drove them to acknowledge the sovereignity of the house
of Arragon; and, during the remainder of the fourteenth century, Athens as
a government or an appanage was successfully bestowed by the kings of
Sicily. Conquered in turn by the French and Catalans, Athens at length
became the capital of a state that extended over Thebes, Argos, Corinth,
Delphi, and a part of Thessaly, and was ruled by the family of Accaioli,
plebeians of Florence (1384-1456). The last duke of this dynasty was
strangled by Mahomet II., who educated his sons in the discipline of the
seraglio.
During the reign of John Palæologus, son of Andronicus the Younger,
which began in 1355, the eastern empire was nearly subverted by the
Genoese. On the return of the legitimate sovereign to Constantinople, the
Genoese, who had established their factories and industries in the suburb
of Galata, or Pera, were allowed to remain. During the civil wars the
Genoese forces took advantage of the disunion of the Greeks, and by the
skilful use of their power exacted a treaty by which they were granted a
monopoly of trade, and almost a right of dominions. The Roman Empire (I
smile in transcribing the name) might soon have sunk into a province of
Genoa if the ambition of the republic had not been checked by the ruin of
her freedom and naval power. Yet the spirit of commerce survived that of
conquest; and the colony of Pera still awed the capital and navigated the
Euxine till it was involved by the Turks in the final servitude of
Constantinople itself.

III.--End of the Roman World

Only three more sovereigns ruled the remnants of the Roman world after
the reign of John Palæologus, but the final downfall of the empire was
delayed above fifty years by a series of events that had sapped the
strength of the Mahometan empire. The rise and triumph of the Moguls and
Tartars under their emperors, descendants of Zingis Khan, had shaken the
globe from China to Poland and Greece (1206-1304). The sultans were
overthrown, and in the general disorder of the Mahometan world a veteran
and adventurous army, which included many Turkoman hordes, was dissolved
into factions who, under various chiefs, lived a life of rapine and
plunder. Some of these engaged in the service of Aladin (1219-1236), Sultan
of Iconium, and among these were the obscure fathers of the Ottoman
line.
Orchan ruled from 1326 to 1360, achieved the conquest of Bithynia, and
first led the Turks into Europe, and in 1353 established himself in the
Chersonesus, and occupied Gallipoli, the key of the Hellespont. Orchan was
succeeded by Amurath I. (1389-1403). Bajazet carried his victorious arms
from the Danube to the Euphrates, and the Roman world became contracted to
a corner of Thrace, between the Propontis and the Black Sea, about fifty
miles in length and thirty in breadth, a space of ground not more extensive
than the lesser principalities of Germany or Italy, if the remains of
Constantinople had not still represented the wealth and populousness of a
kingdom.
Under Manuel (1391-1425), the son and successor of John Palteologus,
Constantinople would have fallen before the might of the Sultan Bajazet had
not the Turkish Empire been oppressed by the revival of the Mogul power
under the victorious Timour, or Tamerlane. After achieving a conquest of
Persia (1380-1393), of Tartary (1370-1383), and Hindustan (1398-1399),
Timour, who aspired to the monarchy of the world, found himself at length
face to face with the Sultan Bajazet. Bajazet was taken prisoner in the war
that followed. Kept, probably only as a precaution, in an iron cage,
Bajazet attended the marches of his conqueror, and died on March 9, 1403.
Two years later, Timour also passed away on the road to China. Of his
empire to-day nothing remains. Since the reign of his descendant
Aurungzebe, his empire has been dissolved (1659-1707); the treasures of
Delhi have been rifled by a Persian robber; and the riches of their kingdom
is now possessed by the Christians of a remote island in the northern
ocean.
Far different was the fate of the Ottoman monarchy. The massive trunk
was bent to the ground, but no sooner did the hurricane pass away than it
again rose with fresh vigour and more lively vegetation. After a period of
civil war between the sons of Bajazet (1403-1421), the Ottoman Empire was
once more firmly established by his grandson, Amurath II. (1421-1451).
One of the first expeditions undertaken by the new sultan was the siege
of Constantinople (1422), but the fortune rather than the genius of the
Emperor Manuel prevented the attempt. Amurath was recalled to Asia by a
domestic revolt, and the siege was raised.
While the sultan led his Janizaries to new conquests, the Byzantine
Empire was indulged in a servile and precarious respite of thirty years.
Manuel sank into the grave, and John Palæologus II. (1425-1448) was
permitted to reign for an annual tribute of 300,000 aspers and the
dereliction of almost all that he held beyond the suburbs of
Constantinople.
On November 1, 1448, Constantine, the last of the Roman emperors,
assumed the purple of the Cæsars. For three years he was allowed to
indulge himself in various private and public designs, the completion of
which were interrupted by a Turkish war, and finally buried in the ruins of
the empire.

IV.--The Great Siege of Constantinople

Mahomet II. succeeded his father Amurath on February 9, 1451. His
hostile designs against the capital were immediately seen in the building
of a fortress on the Bosphorus, which commanded the source whence the city
drew her supplies. In the following year a quarrel between some Greeks and
Turks gave him the excuse of declaring war. His cannon--for the use of
gunpowder, for some time the monopoly of the Christian world, had been
betrayed to Amurath by the Genoese--commanded the port, and a tribute was
exacted from all ships that entered the harbour. But the actual siege was
delayed until the ensuing spring of 1453.
Mahomet, in person, surveyed the city, encouraged his soldiers, and
discussed with his generals and engineers the best means of making the
assault. By his orders a huge cannon was built in Hadrianople. It fired a
ball one mile, and to convey it to its position before the walls, a team of
sixty oxen and the assistance of 200 men were employed. The Emperor
Constantine, unable to excite the sympathy of Europe, attempted the best
defence of which he was capable, with a force of 4,970 Romans and 2,000
Genoese. A chain was drawn across the mouth of the harbour, and whatever
supplies arrived from Candia and the Black Sea were detained for the public
service.
The siege of Constantinople, in which scarcely 7,000 soldiers had to
defend a city sixteen miles in extent against the powers of the Ottoman
Empire, commenced on April 6, 1453. The last Constantine deserves the name
of a hero; his noble band of volunteers was inspired with Roman virtue, and
the foreign auxiliaries supported the honour of the Western chivalry. But
their inadequate stock of gunpowder was wasted in the operations of each
day. Their ordnance was not powerful either in size or number; and if they
possessed some heavy cannon, they feared to plant them on the walls, lest
the aged structure should be shaken and overthrown by the explosion.
The great cannon of Mahomet could only be fired seven times in one day,
but the weight and repetition of the shots made some impression on the
walls. The Turks rushed to the edge of the ditch, attempted to fill the
enormous chasm and to build a road to the assault. In the attack, as well
as in the defence, ancient and modern artillery was employed. Cannon and
mechanical engines, the bullet and the battering-ram, gunpowder and Greek
fire, were engaged on both sides.
Christendom watched the struggle with coldness and apathy. Four ships,
which successfully forced an entrance into the harbour, were the limit of
their assistance. None the less, Mahomet meditated a retreat. Unless the
city could be attacked from the harbour, its reduction appeared to be
hopeless. In this perplexity the genius of Mahomet executed a plan of a
bold and marvellous cast. He transported his fleet over land for ten miles.
In the course of one night four-score light galleys and brigantines
painfully climbed the hill, steered over the plain, and were launched from
the declivity into the shallow waters of the harbour, far above the
molestation of the deeper vessels of the Greeks. A bridge, or mole, hastily
built, formed a base for one of his largest cannon. The galleys, with
troops and scaling ladders, approached the most accessible side of the
walls, and, after a siege of forty days, the diminutive garrison, exhausted
by a double attack, could hope no longer to avert the fate of the
capital.
On Monday, May 28, preparations were made for the final assault. Mahomet
had inspired his soldiers with the hope of rewards in this world and the
next. His camp re-echoed with the shouts of "God is God; there is but one
God, and Mahomet is the apostle of God"; and the sea and land, from Galata
to the Seven Towers, were illuminated with the blaze of the Moslem
fires.
Far different was the state of the Christians. On that last night of the
Roman Empire, Constantine Palæologus, in his palace, addressed the noblest
of the Greeks and the bravest of the allies on the duties and dangers that
lay before them. It was the funeral oration of the Roman Empire. That same
night the emperor and some faithful companions entered the Dome of St.
Sofia, which, within a few hours, was to be converted into a mosque, and
devoutly received, with tears and prayers, the sacrament of the Holy
Communion. He reposed some moments in the palace, which resounded with
cries and lamentations, solicited the pardon of all whom he might have
injured, and mounted on horseback to visit the guards and explore the
motions of the enemy. The distress and fall of the last Constantine are
more glorious than the long prosperity of the Byzantine Cæsars.
At daybreak on May 29 the Turks assaulted the city by sea and land. For
two hours the Greeks maintained the defence with advantage, and the voice
of the emperor was heard encouraging the soldiers to achieve by a last
effort the deliverance of their country. The new and fresh forces of the
Turks supplied the places of their wearied associates. From all sides the
attack was pressed.
The number of the Ottomans was fifty, perhaps one hundred, times
superior to that of the Christians, the double walls were reduced by the
cannons to a heap of ruins, and at last one point was found which the
besiegers could penetrate. Hasan, the Janizary, of gigantic stature and
strength, ascended the outward fortification. The walls and towers were
instantly covered with a swarm of Turks, and the Greeks, now driven from
the vantage ground, were overwhelmed by increasing multitudes.
Amidst these multitudes, the emperor, who accomplished all the duties of
a general and a soldier, was long seen and finally lost. His mournful
exclamation was heard, "Cannot there be found a Christian to cut off my
head?" and his last fear was that of falling alive into the hands of the
infidels. The prudent despair of Constantine cast away the purple. Amidst
the tumult he fell by an unknown hand, and his body was buried under a
mountain of the slain.
After his death, resistance and order were no more. Two thousand Greeks
were put to the sword, and more would have perished had not avarice soon
prevailed over cruelty.
It was thus, after a siege of fifty-three days, that Constantinople,
which had defied the power of Chosroes and the caliphs, was irretrievably
subdued by the arms of Mahomet II. Sixty thousand Greeks were driven
through the streets like cattle and sold as slaves. The nuns were torn from
the monasteries and compelled to enter the harems of their conquerors. The
churches were plundered, and the gold and silver, the pearls and jewels,
the vases and sacerdotal ornaments of St. Sofia were most wickedly
converted to the service of mankind.
The cathedral itself, despoiled of its images and ornaments, was
converted into a mosque, and Mahomet II. performed the namaz of
prayer and thanksgiving at the great altar, where the Christian mysteries
had so lately been celebrated before the last of the Cæsars. The body
of Constantine was discovered under a heap of slain, by the golden eagles
embroidered on his shoes, and after exposing the bloody trophy, Mahomet
bestowed on his rival the honours of a decent funeral. Constantinople,
desolated by bloodshed, was re-peopled and re-adorned by Mahomet. Its
churches were shared between the two religions, and the Greeks were
attracted back to their ancient capital by the assurance of their lives and
the free exercise of their religion.
The grief and terror of Europe when the fall of Constantinople became
known revived, or seemed to revive, the old enthusiasm of the crusades.
Pius II. attempted to lead Christendom against the Turks, but on the very
day on which he embarked his forces drew back, and he was compelled to
abandon the attempt. The siege and sack of Otranto by the Turks put an end
to all thoughts of a crusade, and the general consternation was only
allayed by the death of Mahomet II. in the fifty-first year of his age.
His lofty genius aspired to the conquest of Italy; he was possessed of a
strong city and a capacious harbour, and the same reign might have been
decorated with the trophies of the New and the Ancient Rome.

FRANÇOIS GUIZOT

History of Civilisation
in Europe

François Pierre Guillaume Guizot, French historian
and statesman, was born of Huguenot parents at Nimes on October 4, 1787.
The liberal opinions of his family did not save his father from the
guillotine in 1794, and the mother fled to Geneva, where Guizot was
educated. He went to Paris in the later days of the Empire, and engaged
himself at once in literature and politics. His lectures on the History of
Civilisation delivered in 1828, 1829, and 1830, during his professorship at
the University of Paris, revealed him as a historian with a rare capacity
for mastering the broad essential truths of history, co-ordinating them,
and expounding them with vigour and impressiveness. His first series of
lectures was on "The History of Civilisation in Europe," a masterly
abstract of a colossal subject; the second on "The History of Civilisation
in France." From 1830 to 1848 Guizot occupied high offices of State,
ultimately becoming prime minister; in 1848, like his master Louis
Philippe, he had to fly the country. He died on September 12, 1874.

I.--The Nature of Civilisation

The subject I propose to consider is the civilisation of Europe--its
origins, its progress, its aims, its character. The fact of civilisation
belongs to what is called the philosophic portion of history; it is a
vague, obscure, complex fact, very difficult, I admit, to explain and
describe, but none the less requiring explanation and description. It is,
indeed, the greatest historical fact, to which all others contribute; it is
a kind of ocean which makes the wealth of a people, and in the bosom of
which all the elements of the people's life, all the forces of its
existence, are joined in unity.
What, then, is civilisation--this grave, far-reaching precious reality
that seems the expression of the entire life of a people? It seems to me
that the first and fundamental fact conveyed by the word civilisation is
the fact of progress, of development. But what is this progress? What is
this development? Here is the greatest difficulty of all.
The etymology of the word civilisation seems to provide an easy answer.
It tells us that civilisation is the perfecting of civil life, the
development of society properly so called, of the relations of men to men.
But is this all? Have we exhausted the natural and usual sense of the word?
France, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was acknowledged to be
the most civilised country in Europe; yet in respect of purely civil
progress France was then greatly inferior to some other European countries,
Holland and England, for example. Another development, then, reveals
itself--the development of individual life, of the man himself, of his
faculties, sentiments, and ideas.
These two notions that are comprehended in the broad notion of
civilisation--that of the development of social activity and that of the
development of individual activity--are intimately related to each other.
Their relationship is upheld by the instinctive conviction of men; it is
proved by the course of the world's history--all the great moral and
intellectual advances of man have profited society, all the great social
advances have profited the individual mind.
So much for civilisation in general. It is now necessary to point out
the essential difference between modern European and other civilisations.
The characteristic of other civilisations has been unity; they seem to have
emanated from a single fact, a single idea. In Egypt and India, for
example, the theocratic principle was dominant; in the Greek and Phoenician
republics, the democratic principle. The civilisation of modern Europe, on
the contrary, is diverse, confused, stormy; all the forms and principles of
social organisation theocratic, monarchical, aristocratic, democratic,
co-exist in it; there are infinite gradations of liberty, wealth,
influence. All the various forces are in a state of constant struggle; yet
all of them have a certain family resemblance, as it were, that we cannot
but recognise.
These diverse elements, for all their conflict, cannot any one of them
extinguish any other; each has to dwell with the rest, make a compromise
with the rest. The outcome, then, of this diversity and struggle is
liberty; and here is the grand and true superiority of the European over
the other civilisations. European civilisation, if I may say so, has
entered into eternal truth; it advances in the ways of God.

II.--Feudalism

It would be an important confirmation of my assertion as to the diverse
character of our civilisation if we should find in its very cradle the
causes and the elements of that diversity. And indeed, at the fall of the
Roman empire, we do so find it. Three forms of society, each entirely
different from the other, are visible at this time of chaos. The
municipalities survived, the last remnant of the Imperial system. The
Christian Church survived. And in the third place there were the
Barbarians, who brought with them a military organisation, and a hardy
individual independence, that were wholly new to the peoples who had dwelt
under the shelter of the empire. The Barbarian epoch was the chaos of all
the elements, the infancy of all the systems, a universal hubbub in which
even conflict itself had no definite or permanent effects.
Europe laboured to escape from this confusion; at some times, and in
some places, it was temporarily checked--in particular by the great
Charlemagne in his revival of the imperial power; but the confusion did not
cease until its causes no longer acted. These causes were two--one
material, one moral. The material cause was the irruption of fresh
Barbarian hordes. The moral cause was the lack of any ideas in common among
men as to the structure of society. The old imperial fabric had
disappeared; Charlemagne's restoration of it depended wholly on his own
personality, and did not survive him; men had no ideas of any new
structure--their intellectual horizon was limited to their own affairs. By
the beginning of the tenth century the Barbarian invasions ended, and as
the populations settled down a new system appeared, based partly on the
Barbarians' love of independence, partly on their plans of military
gradation--the system of feudalism.
A sound proof that in the tenth century the feudal system was necessary,
and the only social state possible, lies in the universality of its
establishment. Everywhere society was dismembered; everywhere there was
formed a multitude of small, obscure, isolated societies, consisting of the
chief, his family, his retainers, and the wretched serfs over whom he ruled
without restraint, and who had no appeal against his whim. The power he
exercised was the power of individual over individual, the domination of
personal will and caprice; and this is perhaps the only kind of tyranny
that man, to his eternal honour, is never willing to endure. Hence the
prodigious and invincible hatred that the people have at all times
entertained for feudal rule, for the memories of it, for its very name.
The narrow concentrated life of the feudal lord lent, undoubtedly, a
great preponderance to domesticity in his affairs. The lord had his wife
and children for his permanent society; they continually shared his
interests, his destiny. It was in the bosom of the feudal family that woman
gained her importance in civilisation. The system excited development of
private character and passion that were, all things considered, noble.
Chivalry was the daughter of feudalism.
But from the social point of view feudalism failed to provide either
legal order or political security. It contained elaborate obligations
between the higher and the lower orders of the feudal hierarchy, duties of
protection on the one side and of service on the other. But these
obligations could never be established as institutions. There was no
superior force to which all had to submit; there was public opinion to make
itself respected. Hence the feudal system was without political guarantee
to sustain it. Might alone was right. Feudalism was as much opposed to the
establishment of general order as to the extension of general liberty. It
was indispensable for the reconstruction of European society, but
politically it was in itself a radically bad system.

III.--The Church

Meanwhile the Church, adhering to its own principles, had steadily
advanced along the route that it had marked out for itself in the early
days of its organisation. It was during the feudal epoch the only power
that made for civilised development. All education was ecclesiastical; all
the arts were in the service of the Church. It had, during the Dark Ages,
won the Barbarians to its fold by the gorgeous solemnity of its ritual;
and, to protect itself against secular interference, it had declared the
spiritual power to be independent of the temporal--the first great
assertion, in the history of European civilisation, of the liberty of
thought.
In one set of respects the Church during the feudal epoch satisfied the
conditions of good government; in another, it did not. Its power was
uniformly distributed, it drew its recruits from all classes, and entrusted
the rule to the most capable. It was in close touch with every grade of
mankind; every colony of serfs, even, had its priest. It was the most
popular and most accessible society of the time, the most open to all
talents and all noble ambitions. But, on the other hand, it failed in that
all-important requisite of good government, respect for liberty. It denied
the rights of individual reason in spiritual matters, and it claimed the
right to compel belief--a claim that placed it in some dependence upon the
temporal powers, since as a purely spiritual body, governing by influence
and not by force, it could not persecute without the aid of the secular
arm.
To sum up, the Church exerted an immense and on the whole a beneficent
influence on ideas, sentiments, and conduct; but from the political point
of view the Church was nearly always the interpreter and defender of the
theocratic system and the Roman Imperial system--that is, of religious and
civil despotism.

IV.--The Towns

Like the Church, the municipalities survived the downfall of the Roman
empire. Their history varied greatly in different parts of Europe, but none
the less some observations can be made that are broadly accurate with
respect to most of them.
From the fifth to the tenth century, the state of the towns was a state
neither of servitude nor of liberty. They suffered all the woes that are
the fate of the weak; they were the prey of continual violence and
depredation; yet, in spite of the fearful disorders of the time, they
preserved a certain importance. When feudalism was established, the towns
lost such independence as they had possessed; they found themselves under
the heel of feudal chiefs. But feudalism did bring about a sort of peace, a
sort of order; and with the slightest gleam of peace and order a man's hope
revives, and on the revival of hope he takes to work. So it was with the
towns. New wants were created; commerce and industry arose to satisfy them;
wealth and population slowly returned.
But industry and commerce were absolutely without security; the townsmen
were exposed to merciless extortion and plundering at the hands of their
feudal overlords. Nothing irritates a man more than to be harassed in his
toil, thus deprived of its promised fruits. The only way in which the towns
could defend themselves from the violence of their masters was by using
violence themselves. So in the eleventh century we find town after town
rising in revolt against its despot, and winning from him a charter of
liberty.
Although the insurrection was in a sense general, it was in no way
concerted--it was not a rising of the combined citizens against the
combined feudal aristocracy. All the towns found themselves exposed to much
the same evils, and rescued themselves in much the same manner. But each
town acted for itself--did not go to the help of any other town. Hence
these detached communities had no ambitions, no aspirations to national
importance; their outlook was limited to themselves. But at the same time
the emancipation of the towns created a new class, a class of citizens
engaged in the same pursuits, with the same interests and the same modes of
life; a class that would in time unite and assert itself, and prevent the
domination of a single order of society that has been the curse of
Asia.
Although it may be broadly asserted that the emancipation did not alter
the relations of the citizens with the general government, that assertion
must be modified in one respect. A link was established between the
citizens and the king. Sometimes they appealed for his aid against their
lord, sometimes the lord invoked him as judge; in one way or another a
relation was established between the king and the towns, and the citizens
thus came into touch with the centre of the State.

V.--The Crusades

From the fifth to the twelfth century, society, as we have seen,
contained kings, a lay aristocracy, a clergy, citizens, peasantry, the
germs, in fact, of all that goes to make a nation and a government; yet--no
government, no nation. We have come across a multitude of particular
forces, of local institutions, but nothing general, nothing public, nothing
properly speaking political.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, on the contrary, all the
classes and the particular forces have taken a secondary place, are shadowy
and almost effaced; the stage of the world is occupied by two great
figures, government and people.
Here, if I am not mistaken, is the essential distinction between
primitive Europe and modern Europe. Here is the change that was
accomplished in the period extending from the thirteenth to the sixteenth
century. Viewed by itself, that period seems a characterless one of
confusion without cause, of movement without direction, of agitation
without result. Yet, in relation to the period that followed, this period
had a tendency and a progress of its own; it slowly accomplished a vast
work. It was the second period of European civilisation--the period of
attempt and experiment, succeeding that of origins and formation, and
preparing the way for that of development properly so called.
The first great event of this period was the Crusades--a universal
movement of all classes and all countries in moral unity--the truly heroic
event of Europe. Besides the religious impulse that led to the Crusades,
there was another impulse. They gave to me an opportunity of widening their
horizons, of indulging the taste for movement and adventure. The
opportunity, thus freely taken, changed the face of society. Men's minds
were opened, their ideas were extended, by contact with other races;
European society was dragged out of the groove along which it had been
travelling. Religious ideas remained unchanged, but religious beliefs were
no longer the only sphere in which the human intellect exercised itself.
The moral state of Europe was profoundly modified.
The social state underwent a similar change. Many of the smaller feudal
lords sold their fiefs, or impoverished themselves by crusading, or lost
much of their power during their absence. Property and power came into
fewer hands; society was more centralised, no longer dispersed as it
formerly was. The citizens, on their part, were no longer content with
local industry and trade; they entered upon commerce on a grander scale
with countries oversea. Petty influence yielded place to larger influences;
the small existences grouped themselves round the great. By the end of the
Crusades, the march of society towards centralisation was in steady
progress.

VI.--The Age of Centralisation

Already, in the twelfth century, a new idea of kingship had begun, very
faintly, to make its appearance. In most European countries the king, under
the feudal system, had been a head who could not enforce his headship. But
there was, all the while, such a thing as kingship, and somebody bore the
title of king; and society, striving to escape from feudal violence and to
get hold of real order and unity, had recourse to the king in an
experimental way, to see, as one might say, what he could do. Gradually
there developed the idea of the king as the protector of public order and
justice and of the common interest as the paramount magistrate--the idea
that changed Europe society from a series of classes into a group of
centralised States.
But the old order did not perish without efforts to perpetuate itself.
These efforts were of two kinds; a particular class sought predominance, or
it was proposed that the classes should agree to act in concert. To the
first kind belonged the design of the Church to gain mastery over Europe
that culminated with Pope Gregory VII. It failed for three reasons--because
Christianity is a purely moral force and not a temporal administrative
force; because the ambitions of the Church were opposed by the feudal
aristocracy; and because the celibacy of the clergy prevented the formation
of a caste capable of theocratic organisation. Attempts at democracy were
made, for a time with apparent means, by the Italian civic republics; but
they were a prey to internal disorder, their government tended to become
oligarchical, and their incapacity for uniting among themselves made them
the victims of foreign invaders. The Swiss Republican organisation was more
successful, but became aristocratic and immobile. The House Towns and the
towns of Flanders and the Rhine organised for pure defence; they preserved
their privileges, but remained confined within their walls.
The effort at concerted action by the classes was manifested in the
States General of France, Spain, and Portugal, the Diet in Germany, and the
Parliament in England. All these, except the Parliament, were ineffective
and as it were accidental in their action; all they did was to preserve in
a manner the notion of liberty. The circumstances of England were
exceptional. The Parliament did not govern; but it became a mode of
government adopted in principle, and often indispensable in practice.
Nothing, however, could arrest the march of centralisation. In France
the war of independence against England brought a sense of national unity
and purpose, and feudalism was finally overthrown, and the central power
made dominant, by the policy of Louis XI. Similar effects were brought
about in Spain by the war against the Moors and the rule of Ferdinand. In
England feudalism was destroyed by the Wars of the Roses, and was succeeded
by the Tudor despotism. In Germany, the House of Austria began its long
ascendancy. Thus in the fifteenth century the new principles prevailed; the
old forms, the old liberties were swept aside to make way for centralised
government under absolute rulers.
At the same time another new fact entered into European history. The
kings began to enter into relations with each other, to form alliances;
diplomacy was created. Since it is in the nature of diplomacy to be
conducted more or less secretly by a few persons, and since the peoples did
not and would not greatly concern themselves in it, this development was
favourable to the strengthening of royalty.

VII.--The Spiritual Revolt

Although the Church until the sixteenth century had successfully
suppressed all attempts at spiritual independence, yet the broadening of
men's minds that began with the Crusades, and received a vigorous impetus
from the Renaissance, made its mark even in the fifteenth century upon
ecclesiastical affairs. Three main facts of the moral order are presented
during this period: the ineffectual attempts of the councils of Constance
and Bale to reform the Church from within; the most notable of which was
that of Huss in Bohemia; and the intellectual revolution that accompanied
the Renaissance. The way was thus prepared for the event that was
inaugurated when Luther burnt the Pope's Bull at Wittenberg in 1520.
The Reformation was not, as its opponents contend, the result of
accident or intrigue; nor was it, as its upholders contend, the outcome of
a simple desire for the reform of abuses. It was, in reality, a revolt of
the human spirit against absolute power in spiritual affairs. The minds of
men were during the sixteenth century in energetic movement, consumed by
desire for progress; the Church had become inert and stationary, yet it
maintained all its pretensions and external importance. The Church, indeed,
was less tyrannical than it had formerly been, and not more corrupt. But it
had not advanced; it had lost touch with human thought.
The Reformation, in all the lands that it reached, in all the lands
where it played a great part, whether as conqueror, or as conquered,
resulted in general, constant, and immense progress in liberty and activity
of thought, and tended towards the emancipation of the human spirit. It
accomplished more than it knew; more, perhaps, than it would have desired.
It did not attack temporal absolutism; but the collision between temporal
absolutism and spiritual freedom was bound to come, and did come.
Spiritual movement in European history has always been ahead of temporal
movement. The Church began as a very loose society, without a
properly-constituted government. Then it placed itself under an
aristocratic control of bishops and councils. Then it came under the
monarchical rule of the Popes; and finally a revolution broke out against
absolutism in spiritual affairs. The ecclesiastical and civil societies
have undergone the same vicissitudes; but the ecclesiastical society has
always been the first to be changed.
We are now in possession of one of the great facts of modern society,
the liberty of the human spirit. At the same time we see political
centralisation prevailing nearly everywhere. In the seventeenth century the
two principles were for the first time to be opposed.

VIII.--The Political Revolt

Their first shock was in England, for England was a country of
exceptional conditions both civil and religious. The Reformation there had
in part been the work of the kings themselves, and was incomplete; the
Reformers remained militant, and denounced the bishops as they had formerly
denounced the Pope. Moreover, the aspirations after civil liberty that were
stirred up by the emancipation of thought had means of action in the old
institution of the country--the charter, the Parliament, the laws, the
precedents. Similar aspirations in Continental countries had no such means
of action, and led to nothing.
Two national desires coincided in England at this epoch--the desire for
religious revolution and liberty, and the desire for political liberty and
the overthrow of despotism. The two sets of reformers joined forces. For
the political party, civil freedom was the end; for the religious party, it
was only a means; but throughout the conflict the political party took the
lead, and the others followed. It was not until 1688 that the reformers
finally attained their aim in the abolition of absolute power spiritual and
temporal; and the accession of William of Orange in that year brought
England into the great struggle that was raging on the Continent between
the principle of despotism and the principle of freedom.
England differed from other European countries in that the essential
diversity of European civilisation was more pronounced there than anywhere
else. Elsewhere, one element prevailed over the others until it was
overthrown; in England, even if one element was dominant, the others were
strong and important. Elizabeth had to be far more wary with her nobles and
commons than Louis XIV. with his. For this reason, Europe lagged behind
England in civil freedom. But there was another reason--the influence of
France.
During the seventeenth century, the French Government was the strongest
in Europe, and it was a despotic government. During the eighteenth century,
French thought was the most active and potent in Europe, and it was
unboundedly free thought. Louis XIV. did not, as is sometimes supposed,
adopt as his principles the propagation of absolutism; his aim was the
strength and greatness of France, and to this end he fought and
planned--just as William of Orange fought and planned, not against
despotism, but against France. France presented herself at that age as the
most redoubtable, skilful, and imposing Power in Europe.
Yet, after the death of Louis XIV., the government immediately
degenerated. This was inevitable. No system of government can be maintained
without institutions, and a despot dislikes institutions. The rule of Louis
XIV. was great, powerful, and brilliant, but it had no roots. The decrepit
remains of it were in the eighteenth century brought face to face with a
society in which free examination and free speculation had been carried to
lengths never imagined before. Freedom of thought once came to grips with
absolute power.
Of the stupendous consequence of that collision it is not for me to
speak here; I have reached the end. But let me, before concluding, dwell
upon the gravest and most instructive part that is revealed to us by this
grand spectacle of civilisation. It is the danger, the insurmountable evil
of absolute power in any form--whether in a form of a despot like Louis
XIV. or in that of the untrammelled human spirit that prevailed at the
Revolution. Each human power has in itself a natural vice, a principle of
weakness, to which there has to be assigned a limit. It is only by general
liberty of all rights, interests and opinions that each power can be
restrained within its legitimate bounds, and intellectual freedom enabled
to exist genuinely and to the advantage of the whole community.

HENRY HALLAM

View
of the State of Europe During the Middle Ages

Henry Hallam, the English historian, was born on July 9,
1777, at Windsor, his father being Canon of Windsor, and Dean of Bristol.
Educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, he was called to the English
bar, but devoted himself to the study and writing of history. He received
an appointment in the Civil Service, which, with his private means, placed
him in comfortable leisure for his wide researches. His son, Arthur Henry,
who died at the age of 22, is the subject of Tennyson's "In Memoriam."
Hallam died on January 21, 1859, and was buried at Clevedon, Somersetshire.
The "View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages," commonly known as
Hallam's "Middle Ages," was published by the author in 1818. Hallam was
already well known among the literary men of the day, but this was his
first important work. It is a study of the period from the appearance of
Clovis, the creator of the dominion of the Franks, to the close of the
Middle Ages, the arbitrary dividing line being drawn at the invasion of
Italy by Charles VIII. of France.

I.--France

The Frankish dominion was established over the Roman province of Gaul by
Clovis at the opening of the sixth century. The Merovingian dynasty
degenerated rapidly; and the power passed into the hands of the Mayors of
the Palace--an office which became hereditary with Pepin Heristal and
Charles Martel. With the sanction of the Pope the Merovingian king was
deposed by Pepin, the son of Charles Martel, who was crowned king and
overthrew the Lombard power in Italy.
Pepin was succeeded by Charlemagne, who completed the conquest of the
Lombards, carried his arms into Spain as far as the Ebro, and extended his
power eastwards over the Saxons as far as the Elbe. In his person the Roman
empire was revived, and he was crowned emperor at Rome on Christmas Day
A.D. 800. The great empire he had built up fell to pieces under his
successors, who adopted the disastrous plan of partition amongst
brothers.
France fell to the share of one branch of the Carlovingians. The
Northmen were allowed to establish themselves in Normandy, and Germany was
completely separated from France. The Carlovingians were displaced by Hugh
Capet. The actual royal domain was small, and the kings of the House of
Capet exercised little control over their great feudatories until the reign
of Philip Augustus. That crafty monarch drew into his own hands the greater
part of the immense territories held by the kings of England as French
feudatories. After a brief interval the craft of Philip Augustus was
succeeded by the idealism of St. Louis, whose admirable character enabled
him to achieve an extraordinary ascendancy over the imagination of his
people. In spite of the disastrous failure of his crusading expeditions,
the aggrandisement of the crown continued, especially under Philip the
Fair; but the failure of the direct heirs after the successive reigns of
his three sons placed Philip of Valois on the throne according to the
"Salic" law of succession in 1328.
On the pretext of claiming the succession for himself, Edward III. began
the great French war which lasted, interrupted by only one regular
pacification, for a hundred and twenty years. The brilliant personal
qualities of Edward and the Black Prince, the great resources of England,
and the quality of the soldiery, account for the English successes. After
the peace of Bretigny these triumphs were reversed, and the English lost
their possessions; but when Charles VI. ascended the throne disaster
followed. France was rent by the rival factions of Burgundy and Orleans,
the latter taking its more familiar name from the Court of Armagnac. The
troubled reigns of Richard II. and Henry IV. prevented England from taking
advantage of these dissensions; but Henry V. renewed the war, winning the
battle of Agincourt in his first campaign and securing the Treaty of Troyes
on his second invasion. After his death came that most marvellous
revolution wrought by Joan of Arc, and the expulsion of the English from
the country.
In France the effect of the war was to strengthen the Crown as against
the Nobility, a process developed by the subtlety of Louis XI. Out of the
long contest in which the diplomatic skill of the king was pitted against
the fiery ambitions of Charles of Burgundy, Louis extracted for himself
sundry Burgundian provinces. The supremacy of the Crown was secured when
his son Charles VIII. acquired Brittany by marrying the Duchess Anne.
The essential distinction of ranks in France was found in the possession
of land. Besides the National lands, there were lands reserved to the
Crown, which, under the name of benefices, were bestowed upon personal
followers of the king, held more or less on military tenure; and the king's
vassals acquired vassals for themselves by a similar process of
subinfeudation. On the other hand freeholders inclined, for the sake of
protection, to commend themselves, as the phrase was, to their stronger
neighbours and so to assume the relation of vassal to liege lord. The
essential principle was a mutual contract of support and fidelity,
confirmed by the ceremonies of homage, fealty, and investiture, which
conferred upon the lord the right to various reliefs, fines, and rights
capable of conversion into money payments.
Gentility, now hereditary, was derived from the tenure of land; the idea
of it was emphasised by the adoption of surnames and armorial bearings. A
close aristocracy was created, somewhat modified by the right claimed by
the king of creating nobles. Prelates and abbots were in the same position
as feudal nobles, though the duty of personal service was in many cases
commuted for an equivalent. Below the gentle class were freemen, and the
remainder of the population were serfs or villeins. It was not impossible
for villeins to purchase freedom. In France the privileges possessed by the
vassals of the Crown were scarcely consistent with the sovereignty. Such
were the rights of coining money, of private war, and of immunity from
taxation.
Such legislation as there was appears to have been effected by the king,
supported by a Royal Council or a more general assembly of the barons. It
was only by degrees that the Royal ordinances came to be current in the
fiefs of the greater vassals. It was Philip the Fair who introduced the
general assembly of the Three Estates. This assembly very soon claimed the
right of granting and refusing money as well as of bringing forward
grievances. The kings of France, however, sought to avoid convocation of
the States General by obtaining grants from provincial assemblies of the
Three Estates.
The old system of jurisdiction by elected officers was superseded by
feudal jurisdiction, having three degrees of power, and acting according to
recognised local customs, varied by the right to ordeal by combat. The
Crown began to encroach on these feudal jurisdictions by the establishment
of Royal courts of appeal; but there also subsisted a supreme Court of
Peers to whom were added the king's household officers. The peers ceased by
degrees to attend this court, while the Crown multiplied the councillors of
inferior rank; and this body became known as the Parliament of Paris--in
effect an assembly of lawyers.
The decline of the feudal system was due mainly to the increasing power
of the Crown on the one hand, and of the lower ranks on the other; more
especially from the extension of the privileges of towns. But the feudal
principle itself was weakened by the tendency to commute military service
for money, enabling the Crown to employ paid troops.

II.--Italy and Spain

After the disruption of Charlemagne's empire the imperial title was
revived from the German, Otto the Great of Saxony. His imperial supremacy
was recognised in Italy; the German king was the Roman emperor. Italian
unity had gone to pieces, but the German supremacy offended Italy. Still
from the time of Conrad of Franconia the election of the King of Germany
was assumed, at least my him, to convey the sovereignty of Italy. In the
eleventh century Norman adventurers made themselves masters of Sicily and
Southern Italy. In Northern Italy on the other hand the emperors favoured
the development of free cities, owning only the imperial sovereignty and
tending to self-government on Republican lines. The appearance on the scene
in the twelfth century of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa introduced a
period characterised by a three-fold change: the victorious struggle of the
northern cities for independence; the establishment of the temporal
sovereignty of the Papacy in the middle provinces; and the union of the
kingdom of Naples to the dominions of the Imperial House. The first
quarrels with Milan led to the formation of the Lombard league, and a long
war in which the battle of Legnano gave the confederates a decisive
victory. The mutual rivalries of the States, however, prevented them from
turning this to good account. Barbarossa's grandson, Frederick II., was a
child of four when he succeeded to the Swabian inheritance, and through his
mother to that of Sicily.
It was now that the powerful Pope Innocent III. so greatly extended the
temporal power of the Papacy, and that the rival parties of Guelfs and
Ghibelins, adherents the one of the Papacy, the other of the Empire, were
established as factions in practically every Italian city. When the young
Frederick grew up he was drawn into a long struggle with the Papacy which
ended in the overthrow of the Imperial authority. From this time the
quarrel of Guelfs and Ghibelins for the most part became mere family feuds
resting on no principles. Charles of Anjou was adopted as Papal champion;
the republics of the North were in effect controlled by despots for a brief
moment. Rome revived her republicanism under the leadership of Rienzi. In
the general chaos the principle interest attaches to the peculiar but
highly complicated form of democracy developed in Florence, where the old
Patrician families were virtually disfranchised. Wild and disorderly as was
the state of Florence, the records certainly point to the conditions having
been far worse in the cities ruled by the Visconti and their like.
Of Genoa's wars with Pisa and with Venice a detailed account cannot be
given. Of all the northern cities Venice achieved the highest political
position; isolated to a great extent from the political problems of the
cities of Lombardy and Tuscany, she developed her wealth and her commerce
by the sea. Her splendour may, however, be dated from the taking of
Constantinople by the Latins in 1204, when she became effectively Queen of
the Adriatic and Mistress of the Eastern Mediterranean. In effect her
government was a close oligarchy; possessed of complete control over
elections which in theory were originally popular. The oligarchy reached
its highest and narrowest development with the institution of the famous
Council of Ten.
Naples and Sicily came under the dominion of Charles of Anjou when he
was adopted as Papal champion. The French supremacy, however, was
overthrown when the Sicilians rose and carried out the massacre known as
the Sicilian Vespers. They offered the Crown to the King of Aragon. It was
not till 1409, however, that Sicily was definitely united to the Crown of
Aragon and a few years later the same king was able to assert successfully
a claim to Naples.
When the Roman empire was tottering the Visigoths established their
dominion in Spain. In 712 Saracen invaders made themselves masters of the
greater part of the peninsula. The Christians were driven into the more
northern parts and formed a number of small States out of which were
developed the kingdoms of Navarre, Leon and Castille, and Aragon. Frontier
towns acquired large liberties while they were practically responsible for
defence against the Moors. During the thirteenth century great territories
were recovered from the Moors; but the advance ceased as the Moors were
reduced to the compact kingdom of Granada. In the fourteenth century the
struggle for Castille between Pedro the Cruel and his brother established
the house of Trastamare on the throne. The Crowns of Castille and Aragon
were united by the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand.
The government of the old Gothic monarchy was through the Crown and a
Council of Prelates and Nobles. At a comparatively early date, however, the
"Cortes" was attended by deputies from the town, though the number of these
was afterwards closely limited. The principle of taxation through
representatives was recognised; and laws could neither be made nor annulled
except in the Cortes. This form of constitutionalism was varied by the
claim of the nobles to assume forcible control when matters were conducted
in a fashion of which they disapproved.
The union of Castille and Aragon led immediately to the conquest of
Granada completed in 1492; an event which in some respects counterbalanced
the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks.

III.--The German Empire and the Papacy

When the German branch of the Carlovingian dynasty became extinct the
five German nations--Franconia, Swabia, Bavaria, Saxony, and
Lorraine--resolved to make the German kingship elective. For some
generations the Crown was bestowed on the Saxon Ottos. On the extinction of
their house in 1024, it was succeeded by a Franconian dynasty which came
into collision with the Papacy under Pope Gregory VII. On the extinction of
this line in 1025 Germany became divided between the partisans of the
Houses of Swabia and Saxony, the Wibelungs and Welfs,--the origin of the
Hibelines and Guelfs. The Swabian House, the Hohenstauffen, gained the
ascendancy in the person of Frederick Barbarossa. The lineal
representatives of the Saxon Guelfs are found to-day in the House of
Brunswick.
The rule of the Swabian House is most intimately connected with Italian
history. In the thirteenth century the principle that the right of election
of the emperor lay with seven electors was apparently becoming established.
There were the Archbishops of Mentz, Treves, and Cologne, the Duke of
Saxony, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the King of Bohemia, and the
Margrave of Brandenburg. In all other respects, however, several other
dukes and princes were at least on an equality with the electors.
In 1272 the election fell on the capable Rudolph of Hapsburg; and for
some time after this the emperors were chosen from the Houses of Austria,
Bavaria, or Luxemburg.
Disintegration was greatly increased by the practice of the partition of
territories among brothers in place of primogeniture. A preponderating
authority was given to the electors by the Golden Bull of Charles IV. in
1355. The power of the emperor as against the princes was increased, as
that of the latter was counterbalanced by the development of free cities.
Considerable reforms were introduced at the close of our period mainly by
Maximilian.
The depravity of the Greek empire would have brought it to utter ruin at
a much earlier date but for the degeneration which overtook Mohammedanism.
Incidentally the Crusades helped the Byzantine power at first to strengthen
its hold on some of its threatened possessions; but the so-called fourth
crusade replaced the Greek Empire by a Latin one with no elements of
permanency. When a Greek dynasty was re-established, and the crusading
spirit of Western Europe was already dead, the Byzantine Princes were left
to cope with the Turks single handed, and the last of the Cæsars died
heroically when the Ottomans captured Constantinople in 1453.
Throughout the early middle ages the Church acquired enormous wealth and
Church lands were free from taxation. It was not till a comparatively late
period that the payment of tithes was enforced by law. Not infrequently the
Church was despoiled by violence, but the balance was more than recovered
by fraud. By the time of Charlemagne the clergy were almost exempt from
civil jurisdiction and held practically an exclusive authority in matters
of religion. The state, however, maintained its temporal supremacy. When
the strong hand of Charlemagne was removed ecclesiastical influence
increased.
It was under Gregory the Great that the Papacy acquired its great
supremacy over the Provincial Churches. As the power of the Church grew
after the death of Charlemagne, partly from the inclination of weak kings
to lean on ecclesiastical support, the Papal claims to authority developed
and began to be maintained by the penalties of excommunication and
interdict.
A period of extreme laxity in the tenth century was to be brought to a
close in the eleventh partly by the pressure brought to bear on the Papacy
by the Saxon emperors, but still bore by the ambitious resolution of
Gregory VII. This remarkable man was determined to assert the complete
supremacy of the Holy See over all secular powers. He refused to recognise
the right of secular princes to make ecclesiastical appointments within
their own dominions; and he emphasised the distinction between the
priesthood, as a cast having divine authority, and the laity, by enforcing
with the utmost strictness the ecclesiastical law of celibacy, which
completely separates the churchman from the normal interests and ambitions
which actuate the layman.
In the contest between Gregory and the emperor, it seemed for the moment
as if the secular power had won the victory; but, in fact, throughout the
twelfth century; the claims which Gregory had put forward were becoming
practically effective partly from the great influence exercised through the
Crusades. These Papal pretensions reached their climax in the great Pope
Innocent III., who asserted with practical success the right to pronounce
absolutely on all disputes between princes or between princes and their
subjects, and to depose those who rejected his authority. Throughout the
thirteenth century Rome was once more mistress of the world.
The Church derived great influence from the institution of mendicant
orders, especially those of St. Dominic and St. Francis which recovered
much of the esteem forfeited by the old Monastic orders. Another instrument
of Papal influence was the power of granting dispensations both with regard
to marriages and as to the keeping of oaths. If the clergy were free for
the most part from civil taxation, they were nevertheless severely mulcted
by the Papacy. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction encroached upon the secular
tribunals; the classes of persons with respect to whom it claimed exclusive
authority were persistently extended, in spite of the opposition of such
Princes as Henry II. and Edward I.
At last, however, the Papal aggressor met his match in Philip the Fair.
When Boniface VIII. died, his successors first submitted to the French
monarchy and then became its nominees; while they resided at Avignon,
virtually under French control. The restoration of the pontificate to Rome
in 1375 was shortly followed by the Great Schism. For some years there were
two rival Popes, each of whom was recognised by one or the other half of
Western Christendom. This was terminated by the Council of Constance, which
incidentally affirmed the supremacy of general councils over the Pope. The
following council at Basle was distinctly anti-papal; but the Papacy had
the better of the contest.

IV.--England

The Anglo-Saxon polity limited the succession of the Crown to a
particular house but allowed a latitude of choice within that house. The
community was divided into Thames or gentry, Ceorls or freemen, and serfs.
The ceorls tended to sink to the position known later as villeinage. The
composition of the king's great council called the Witenagemot is doubtful.
The country was divided into shires, the shire into districts called
hundreds, and the hundreds into tithings. There appears to be no adequate
authority for the idea that trial by jury was practised; the prevailing
characteristic of justice was the system of penalty by fine, and the
responsibility of the tithing for the misdeeds of any of its members. There
is no direct evidence as to the extent to which feudal tenures were
beginning to be established before the Norman conquest.
The Norman conquest involved a vast confiscation of property and the
exclusion of the native English from political privileges. The feudal
system of land tenure was established; but its political aspect here and in
France was quite different. There were no barons with territories
comparable to those of the great French feudataries. That the government
was extremely tyrannical is certain. The Crown derived its revenues from
feudal dues, customs duties, tallages--that is, special charges on
particular towns,--and the war tax called the Danegelt; all except the
first being arbitrary taxes. The violence of King John led to the demand of
the barons for the Great Charter, the keystone of English liberty, securing
the persons and property of all freemen from arbitrary imprisonment or
spoliation. Thenceforth no right of general taxation is claimed. The barons
held themselves warranted in refusing supplies.
The King's Court was gradually separated into three branches, King's
Bench, Exchequer, and Common Pleas. The advance in the study of law had the
definite effect of establishing a fixed rule of succession to the Crown.
One point must still be noticed which distinguishes England from other
European countries; that the law recognises no distinction of class among
freemen who stand between the peers and villeins.
The reign of Edward I. forms an epoch. The Confirmation of the Charters
put an end to all arbitrary taxation; and the type of the English
Parliament was fixed. In the Great Councils the prelates and greater barons
had assembled, and the lesser barons were also summoned; the term baron
being equivalent to tenant in chief. A system of representation is
definitely formulated in Montfort's Parliament of 1265. Whether the knights
were elected by the freemen of the shire or only by the tenants in chief,
is not clear. Many towns were self governing--independent, that is, of
local magnates--under charters from the Crown. Montfort's Parliament is the
first to which towns sent representatives. Edward established the practice
in his Model Parliament; probably in order to ensure that his demands for
money from the towns might in appearance at least receive their formal
assent.
Parliament was not definitely divided into two houses until the reign of
Edward III. In this reign the Commons succeeded in establishing the
illegality of raising money without consent; the necessity that the two
houses should concur for any alterations in the law; and the right of the
Commons to enquire into public abuses and to impeach public counsellors.
Under the second heading is introduced a distinction between statutes and
ordinances; the latter being of a temporary character, and requiring to be
confirmed by Parliament before they acquire permanent authority. In the
next reign the Commons assert the right of examining the public
expenditure. Moreover the Parliaments more openly and boldly expressed
resentment at the acts of the king's ministers and claimed rights of
control. For a time, however, the king secured supremacy by a coup
d'état; which in turn brought about his deposition, and the
accession of Henry IV., despite the absurd weakness of his title to the
inheritance of the Crown.
The rights thus acquired developed until the War of the Roses. Notably
redress of grievances became the condition of supply; and the inclination
of the Crown to claim a dispensing power is resolutely combated. It is also
to be remarked that the king's foreign policy of war or peace is freely
submitted to the approval of Parliament.
This continues during the minority of Henry VI.; but the revival of
dissatisfaction with the government leads to a renewed activity in the
practice of impeachments; and Parliament begins to display a marked
sensitiveness on the question of its privileges. The Commons further
definitely express their exclusive right of originating money bills.
At this time it is clear that at least all freeholders were entitled to
vote in the election of the knights of the shire. The selection of the
towns which sent up members, and the franchise under which their members
were elected, seems to have been to a considerable extent arbitrary. Nor
can we be perfectly certain of the principles on which writs were issued
for attendance in the upper house. We find that for some time the lower
clergy as well as the higher were summoned to attend Parliament; but
presently, sitting in a separate chamber, they ceased to take part in
Parliamentary business.
We have seen the King's Court divided into three courts of justice. The
court itself, however, as the king's Council, continued to exercise a
juridical as well as a deliberative and administrative function. In spite
of the charter, it possessed an effective if illegal power of arbitrary
imprisonment.
So far the essential character of our constitution appears to be a
monarchy greatly limited by law but swerving continually into irregular
courses which there was no constraint adequate to correct. There is
absolutely no warrant for the theory that the king was merely a hereditary
executive magistrate, the first officer of the State. The special advantage
enjoyed by England lay in the absence of an aristocracy with interests
antagonistic to those of the people. It would be truer to say that the
liberties of England were bought by money than by the blood of our
forefathers.
The process by which the villein became a hired labourer is obscure and
an attempt was made to check it by the Statute of Labourers at the time of
the Black Death. This was followed by the peasant's revolt of 1382, which
corresponded to the far worse horrors of the French Jacquerie. Sharply
though this was suppressed, the real object of the rising seemed to have
been accomplished. Of the period of the Wars of the Roses it is here
sufficient to say that it established the principle embodied in a statute
of Henry VII. that obedience to the de facto government is not to be
punished on the ground that government is not also de jure.

V.--Europe

In spite of the Teutonic incursion, Latin remained the basis of language
as it survived in Italy, France, and Spain. But the pursuit of letters was
practically confined to the clergy and was by them employed almost
exclusively in the interests of clerical authority. To this end a multitude
of superstitions were encouraged; superstitions which were the cause of not
a few strange and irrational outbursts of fanaticism. The monasteries
served indeed a useful purpose as sanctuaries in days of general
lawlessness and rapine; but the huge weight of evidence is conclusive as to
the general corruption of morals among the clergy as among the laity. The
common diversion of the upper classes, lay and clerical, when not engaged
in actual war, was hunting. An extended commerce was impossible when
robbery was a normal occupation of the great.
Gradually, however, a more orderly society emerged. Maritime commerce
developed in two separate areas, the northern and western, and the
Mediterranean. The first great commerce in the north arises from the
manufacture in Flanders of the wool exported from England. And in the
fourteenth century England herself began to compete in the woollen
manufacture. The German free manufacturing towns established the Great
Hanseatic League; but maritime commerce between the Northern and Southern
areas was practically non-existent till the fifteenth century, by which
time English ships were carrying on a fairly extensive traffic in the
Mediterranean. In that area the great seaports of Italy, and in a less
degree, of Catalonia and the French Mediterranean seaboard, developed a
large commerce. Naturally, however, the law which it was sufficiently
difficult to enforce by land was even more easily defied on the sea, and
piracy was extremely prevalent.
Governments as well as private persons were under a frequent necessity
of borrowing, and for a long time the great money lenders were the Jews.
They, however, were later to a great extent displaced by the merchants of
Lombardy, and the fifteenth century witnesses the rise of the great
bankers, Italian and German.
The structure and furniture of all buildings for private purposes made
exceedingly little provision for comfort, offering an extreme contrast to
the dignity of the public buildings and the sublimity of ecclesiastical
architecture.
During the last three hundred years of our period it is clear that there
was a great diminution of the status of servitude and a great increase in
the privileges extended to corporate towns. Private warfare was checked and
lawless robbery to a considerable extent restrained. It is tolerably clear
that the rise of heretical sects were both the cause and the result of
moral dissatisfaction, tending to the adoption of higher moral standards.
Some of these sects were cruelly crushed by merciless persecution, as in
the case of the Albigenses. The doctrines of Wickliffe, however, were never
stamped out in England; and the form which they took in Bohemia among the
followers of the martyred John Huss had little about them that was
beneficial.
The great moral school of the Middle Ages was the institution of
chivalry, which existed to animate and cherish the principle of honour. To
this a strong religious flavor was superadded, perhaps by the Crusades. To
valour and devotion was added the law of service to womanhood, and chivalry
may fairly claim to have developed generally the three virtues essential to
it, of loyalty, courtesy, and liberality. Resting, however, as it did on
the personal prowess and skill of the individual in single combat, the
whole system of chivalry was destroyed by the introduction on an extensive
scale of the use of firearms.
We turn lastly to the intellectual improvement which may be referred to
four points: the study of civil laws the institution of universities; the
application of modern languages to literature, and especially to poetry;
and the revival of ancient learning. Education may almost be said to have
begun with the establishment of the great schools by Charlemagne out of
which sprang the European universities. For a long time of course all
studies were dominated by that of theology, and the scholastic philosophy
which pertained to it. Barren as these pursuits were, they kept alive an
intellectual activity which ultimately found fresh channels. The Romance
languages developed a new literature first on the tongues of the
troubadours and then in Italy--the Italy which gave birth to Dante and
Petrarch. It was about the fourteenth century that a new enthusiasm was
born for the study of classical authors, though Greek was still unknown.
And the final and decisive impulse was given when the invention of printing
made the great multiplication of books possible.

STANLEY LANE-POOLE

Egypt in the Middle Ages

Stanley Lane-Poole, born on December 18, 1845, studied
Arabic under his great-uncle, Lane, the Orientalist, and, before going up
to Oxford for his degree, began his "Catalogue of Oriental Coins in the
British Museum," which appeared in fourteen volumes between 1875 and 1892,
and founded his reputation as the first living authority on Arabic
numismatics. In 1883, 1896, and 1897 he was at Cairo officially employed by
the British Government upon the Mohammedan antiquities, and published his
treatise on "The Art of the Saracens in Egypt" in 1886, in which year he
visited Stockholm, Helsingfors, St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Constantinople
to examine their Oriental collections. He has written histories of the
"Moors in Spain," "Turkey," "The Barbary Corsairs," and "Mediæval India,"
which have run to many editions; and biographies of Saladin, Babar,
Aurangzib; of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, and Sir Harry Parkes. He has
also published a miniature Koran in the "Golden Treasury" series, and
written "Studies in a Mosque," besides editing three volumes of Lane's
"Arabic Lexicon." For five years he held the post of Professor of Arabic at
Trinity College, Dublin, of which he is Litt.D. Mohammedan Egypt, his
special subject, he has treated in several books on Cairo, the latest being
"The Story of Cairo." But his most complete work on this subject is "The
History of Egypt in the Middle Ages," here epitomised by the author.

I.--A Province of the Caliphate

Ever since the Arab conquest in 641 Egypt has been ruled by Mohammedans,
and for more than half the time by men of Turkish race. Though now and
again a strong man has gathered all the reins of control into his own hands
and been for a time a personal monarch, as a rule the government has been,
till recent years, a military bureaucracy.
The people, of course, had no voice in the government. The Egyptians
have never been a self-governing race, and such a dream as constitutional
democracy was never heard of until a few years ago. By the Arab conquest in
the seventh century the people merely changed masters. They were probably
not indisposed to welcome the Moslems as their deliverers from the tyranny
of the Orthodox Church of the East Roman or Byzantine Empire, invincibly
intolerant of the native monophysite heresy; and when the conquest was
complete they found themselves, on the whole, better off than before. They
paid their taxes to officials with Arabic instead of Greek titles, but the
taxes were lighter and the amount was strictly laid down by law.
The land-tax of about a pound per acre was not excessive on so fertile a
soil, and the poll-tax on nonconformity, of the same amount, was a moderate
price to pay for entire liberty of conscience and freedom in public worship
guaranteed by solemn treaty. The other taxes were comparatively
insignificant, and the total revenue in the eighth century was about
£7,000,000. The surplus went to the caliph, the head of the vast
Mohammedan empire, which then stretched from Seville to Samarkand, whose
capital was first Damascus and afterwards Baghdad.
For over 200 years (till 868) Egypt was a mere province of this huge
caliphate, and was governed, like other provinces, with a sole view to
revenue. "Milk till the udder be dry and let blood to the last drop" was a
caliph's instructions to a governor of Egypt. As these governors were
constantly changed--there were sixty-seven in 118 years under the Abbasid
caliphs of Baghdad--and as a governor's main object was to "make hay while
the sun shines," the process of milking the Egyptian cow was often
accelerated by illegal extortion, and the governor's harvest was reaped
before it was due. Illegality was, however, checked to some extent by the
generally wise and just influence of the chief justice, or kadi, whose
probity often formed the best feature of the Arab government in Egypt.
Nor did the caliphs extort taxes without giving something in return. The
development of irrigation works was always a main consideration with the
early Mohammedan rules, from Spain to India, and in Egypt, where irrigation
is the country's very life, it was specially cared for, with a
corresponding increase in the yield. Moreover, the governors usually held
to the agreement that the Christians should have liberty of conscience, and
protected them from the Moslem soldiery. As time went on, this toleration
abated, partly because the Moslems had gradually become the predominant
population. At the beginning the caliphs had taken anxious precautions
against the colonising of Egypt; they held it by an army, but they were
insistent that the army should not take root, but be always free to join
the caliph's standard. But it was inevitable that the Arabs should settle
in so fertile and pleasant a land. Each governor brought a small army as
his escort, and these Arab troops naturally intermarried with Egyptian
women, who were constitutionally inclined to such alliances. A few Arab
tribes also settled in Egypt.
This gradual and undesigned Arabising of the country would lead to
oppression of the Christians, to the "squeezing" of wealthy natives, and
occasionally to the institution of humiliating distinctions of dress and
other vexations, and even to the spoiling of Coptic churches. Then
sometimes the Copts, as the Egyptian Christians are called, would rebel.
Their last and greatest rebellion, which occurred in the Delta in 830-832,
was ruthlessly trampled out by Turkish troops under Mamun, the only Abbasid
caliph who made a visit to Egypt. Many Copts now apostatised, and from this
time dates the predominance of the Moslem population and the settling of
Arabs in the villages and on the land, instead of as heretofore only in the
two or three large towns.
The coming of the Turkish troops with the caliph Mamun was an ominous
event for the country. Up to 846 all the successive governors had been
Arabs, and many of them were related to the caliphs themselves. With some
unfortunate exceptions, they seem to have been men of simple habits--the
Arabs were never luxurious--and usually of strict Mohammedan principles.
They made money, honestly if possible, during their brief tenure; but they
did not harass the people much by their personal interference, and left the
local officials to manage matters in their own way, as had always been the
custom. They lived at the new capital, Fustat, which grew up on the site of
the conqueror's camp, and very near the modern Cairo; for Alexandria, the
symbol of Roman domination, was dismantled in 645 after the Emperor
Manuel's attempt at reconquest. If they did not do much active good, they
did little harm, and Egypt pursued her immemorial ways.
The last Arab governor, Anbasa, was a man of fine character, and his
term of office was distinguished by the building of the fort of Damietta,
as a protection against Roman raids, and by a defeat of the tributary
Sudanis near Dongola.

II.--Turkish Governors

The Arabs have neither the ferocity nor the luxuriousness, nor, it
should be added, the courage and the genius for administration of the
Turkish race. In the arrival of Turkish troops in 830 we see a symptom of
what was going on all over the eastern caliphate. Turks were taking the
place of Arabs in the army and the provincial governments, just as the
Persians were filling up the civil appointments. The caliph's Turkish
bodyguard was the beginning of the dismemberment of the caliphate. It
became the habit of the caliphs to grant the government of Egypt, as a sort
of fief, to a leading Turkish officer, who usually appointed a deputy to do
his work and to pay him the surplus revenue. Such a deputy was
Ahmad-ibn-Tulun (868-884), the first of the many Turkish despots of Egypt.
Ibn-Tulun was the first ruler to raise Egypt from a mere tax-paying
appendage of the caliphate to a kingdom, independent save for the
recognition of the caliph on the coinage, and he was the first to found a
Moslem dynasty there. A man of fair Mohammedan education, iron will, and
ubiquitous personal attention to affairs, he added Syria to his dominions,
defeated the East Romans with vast slaughter near Tarsus (883), kept an
army of 30,000 Turkish slaves and a fleet of a hundred fighting ships.
He beautified his capital by building a sumptuous palace and his
well-known mosque, which still stands in his new royal suburb of Katai; he
encouraged the small farmers and reduced the taxation, yet he left five
millions in the treasury when he died in 884. His son maintained his power,
and more than his luxury and artistic extravagance; but there were no
elements of stability in the dynasty, which depended solely upon the
character of the ruler. The next generation saw Egypt once more (905) a
mere province of the caliphate, but with this difference, that its
governors were now Turks, generally under the control of their own
soldiery, and much less dependent upon the ever-weakening power of the
Caliph of Baghdad. One of them, the Ikhshid, in 935 emulated Ibn-Tulun and
united part of Syria to Egypt; but the sons he left were almost children,
and the power fell into the hands of the regent Kafur, a black eunuch from
the Sudan, bought for £25, who combined a luxurious and cultivated
court with some military successes and real administrative capacity.

III.--The Fatimid Caliphs

The Mohammedan world is roughly divided into Sunnis and Shia. The Shia
are the idealists, the mystics of Islam; the Sunnis are the formalists, the
schoolmen. The Shia trace an apostolic succession from Ali, the husband of
the prophet Mohammed's daughter Fatima, hold doctrines of immanence and
illumination, adopt an allegorical interpretation of scripture, and believe
in the coming of a Mahdi or Messiah. The Sunnis adhere to the elective
historical caliphate descended from Mohammed's uncle, maintain the eternal
uncreated sufficiency of the Koran, literally interpreted, and believe in
no Messiah save Mohammed.
The Shia, whatever their racial origin, form the Persian, the Aryan,
adaptation of Islam, which is an essentially Semitic creed. In the tenth
century they had established a caliph among the Berbers at Kayrawan (908).
They had thence invaded Egypt with temporary success in 914 and 919. When
the death of Kafur in 968 left the country a prey to rival military
factions, the fourth of the caliphs of Kayrawan--called the Fatimid
caliphs, because they claimed a very doubtful descent from Fatima--sent his
army into Egypt. The people, who had too long been the sport of Turkish
mercenaries, received the invaders as deliverers, just as the Copts had
welcomed the Arabs three centuries before. Gauhar, the Fatimid general,
entered Fustat (or Misr, as it was usually called, a name still applied
both to Egypt and to its capital) amid acclamations in 969, and immediately
laid the foundations of the fortified palace which he named,
astrologically, after the planet Mars (Kahir), El-Kahira, "the Martial," or
"the Victorious," which gradually expanded to the city of Cairo. He also
founded the great historic university mosque of the Azhar, which, begun by
the heretical Shia, became the bulwark of rigid scholasticism and the
theological centre of orthodox Islam.
The theological change was abrupt. It was as though Presbyterian
Scotland had suddenly been put under the rule of the Jesuits. But, like the
Society of Jesus, the Shia were pre-eminently intellectual and recognised
the necessity of adapting their teaching to the capacities of their
hearers, and the conditions of the time. They did not force extreme Shia
doctrine upon the Egyptians. Their esoteric system, with its graduated
stages of initiation, permitted a large latitude, and they were content to
add their distinctive formulas to the ordinary Mohammedan ritual, and to
set them conspicuously on their coinage, without entering upon a
propaganda. The bulk of the Egyptian Moslems apparently preserved their
orthodoxy and suffered an heretical caliphate for two centuries with
traditional composure. The Christian Copts found the new
régime a marked improvement. Mysticism finds kindred elements
in many faiths, and the Fatimid caliphs soon struck up relations with the
local heads of the Christian religion.
The second Egyptian caliph, Aziz (975-996), was greatly influenced by a
Christian wife, who encouraged his natural clemency. Bishop Severus
attended his court, and Coptic churches were rebuilt. Throughout the
Fatimid period we constantly find Christians and Jews, and especially
Armenians, advanced to the highest offices of state. This was partly due,
of course, to their special qualifications as scribes and accountants, for
Arabs and Turks were no hands at "sums." The land had rest under this wise
and tolerant caliph. If he set a dangerous example in his luxury and love
of display, he unquestionably maintained law, enforced equity, punished
corruption, and valiantly defended his kingdom. He fitted out a fleet of
600 sail at Maks (then the port of Cairo, on the Nile), which kept the
Emperor Basil at a distance and assured the caliph's ascendancy from end to
end of the Mediterranean Sea.
After these two great rulers the Fatimid caliphate subsisted for nearly
two centuries by no virtue or energy of its own. The caliphs lived
secluded, like veiled prophets, in their huge palace at Cairo, given over
to sensual delights (Saladin found 12,000 women in the Great Palace when he
entered it in 1171), and wholly regardless of their kingdom, which they
left to the care of vezirs, who were chiefly bent on making their own
fortunes, though there were many able, and a few honest men amongst them.
The real power rested with the army, and the only check upon the tyranny
and debauchery of the army lay in its own jealous divisions. The fanatical
Berber regiments imported from Tunis, the bloody blacks recruited in the
Sudan, and the mutinous Turkish troops long established in the country,
were always at daggers drawn, and their rivalry was the vezirs'
opportunity. In such anarchy the country fell from bad to worse.
The reign of Hakim, the frantic son of Aziz and his Christian wife, was
a personal despotism of the most eccentric kind, marked by apparently
unreasonable regulations, such as keeping the shops open by night instead
of by day, and confining all women to the house for seven years, as well as
by intermittent persecution of Christians and Jews; and also by enlightened
acts, such as the founding of the Hall of Science and the building of
mosques, for all the Fatimides were friends to the arts; and ending in the
proclamation of Hakim as the incarnation of the Divine Reason, in which
capacity he is still adored by the Druses of the Lebanon. This assumption
led to popular tumults and an orgy of carnage, in the midst of which Hakim
mysteriously disappeared (1021).
His successors, Zahir (1021-1036), and Mustansir (1036-1096) did nothing
to retrieve the anarchic situation, of which the soldiers were the unruly
masters. Palace cliques, disastrous famines (one of which lasted seven
years, 1066-1072, and even led to the public selling of human joints as
butcher's meat), slave, or rather freedmen's, revolts, military tumults,
and the occasional temporary ascendancy of a talented vezir, sum up the
history of Egypt during most of the eleventh century. The wisdom and
firmness of two great Armenian vezirs, Bedr-el-Gemali (1073-1094) and his
son Afdal (1094-1121), brought a large degree of order, but the last years
of the Fatimid caliphate were blotted by savage murders both of caliphs and
vezirs, and by the loss of their Syrian dominions to Seljuks and
Crusaders.

IV.--The House of Saladin

It was a question whether Egypt would fall to the Christian king of
Jerusalem or the Moslem king of Damascus; but, after several invasions by
both, Nur-ed-din settled the problem by sending his Syrian army to Cairo in
1169, when the Crusaders withdrew without offering battle, and the Fatimid
caliphate came to an end in 1171.
On the Syrian general's death, two months after the conquest, his
nephew, Salah-ed-din ibn-Ayyub (Saladin), succeeded to the vezirate, and
after Nur-ed-din's death, in 1174, he made himself independent sultan, not
only of Egypt but of Syria and Mesopotamia. Saladin was a Kurd from the
Tigris districts; but his training and his following were purely Turkish,
moulded on the Seljuk model, and recruited largely from the Seljuk lands.
His fame was won outside Egypt, and only eight of the twenty-four years of
his reign were spent in Cairo; the rest was passed in waging wars in Syria,
Mesopotamia, and Palestine, culminating in the catastrophic defeat of the
Crusaders near Tiberias in 1187, and the conquest of Jerusalem and all of
the Holy Land.
The famous crusade of Richard I., though it resulted only in recovering
a strip of coast from Acre to Jaffa, and did not rescue Jerusalem, wore out
Saladin's strength, and in 1193 the chivalrous and magnanimous "Soldan"
died. In Egypt his chief work, after repressing revolts of black troops and
Shia conspiracies, and repelling successive naval attacks on Damietta and
Alexandria by the Eastern emperor and the kings of Jerusalem and Sicily,
was the building of the Citadel of Cairo after the model of Norman
fortresses in Syria, and the encouragement of Sunni orthodoxy by the
founding and endowment of medresas, or theological colleges. The people,
who had never been really converted to the Fatimid creed, accepted the
latest reformation with their habitual nonchalance. This was really the
greatest achievement of Saladin and his house. Cairo succeeded to Baghdad
and Cordova as the true metropolis of Islam, and Egypt has remained true to
the most narrow school of orthodoxy ever since.
Saladin's kinsmen, known as the Ayyubid dynasty, ruled Egypt for over
half a century after the death of their great leader. First his politic
brother, Adil Seyf-ed-din ("Saphadin") carried on his fine tradition for a
quarter of a century, and then from 1218 to 1238 Seyf-ed-din's able son
Kamil, who had long been the ruler of Egypt during his father's frequent
absences, followed in his steps. The futile efforts of the discredited
Crusaders disturbed their peace. John of Brienne's seizure of Damietta was
a serious menace, and it took all Kamil's energy to defeat the "Franks" at
Mansura (1219) and drive them out of the country.
On the other hand, he cultivated very friendly relations with the
Emperor Frederic II., who concluded a singular defensive alliance with him
in 1229, to the indignation of the Pope. He was tolerant to Christians, and
listened to the preaching of St. Francis of Assisi; he granted trading
concessions to the Venetians and Pisans, who established a consulate at
Alexandria. At the same time he notably encouraged Moslem learning, built
colleges, and developed the resources of the kingdom in every way. What had
happened to the dynasties of Tulun, Ikhshid, and the Fatimides, was
repeated on the death of Kamil. Two sons kept the throne successively till
1249, and then, in the midst of Louis IX's crusade, the salvation of Egypt
devolved on the famous Mamluks, or white slaves, who had formed the
corps d'élite of Saladin's army.

V.--The Mamluks

Political women have played a great rôle in Egypt from Hatshepsut
and Cleopatra to the Christian wife of Aziz, the princess royal who
engineered the downfall of Hakim, and the black mother who dominated
Mustansir; and it was a woman who was the first queen of the Mamluks.
Sheger-ed-durr ("Tree of Pearls"), widow of Salih, the last reigning
Ayyubid of Egypt, was the brain of the army which broke the chivalry of
France.
At the second battle of Mansura in 1249, she took Louis prisoner. Then
she married a leading Mamluk emir, to conciliate Moslem prejudice against a
woman's rule, and thenceforth for more than two centuries and a half one
Mamluk after another seized the throne, held it as long as he could, and
sometimes transmitted it to his son. When it is noted that forty-eight
sultans (twenty-five Bahri Mamluks, or "white slaves of the river," so
called from the barracks on an island in the Nile, and twenty-three Burgis,
named after the burg, or citadel, where their quarters originally were),
succeeded one another from 1250 to 1517, it will be seen that their average
reign was but three and a half years. The throne, in fact, belonged to the
man with the longest sword.
The bravest and richest generals and court officials surrounded
themselves with bands of warrior slaves, and reached a power almost equal
to the reigning sultan, who was, in fact, only primus inter pares,
and on his death--usually by assassination--they fought for his title. All
were alike slaves by origin, but this term implied no degradation. Any
slave with courage and address had the chance of becoming a freedman,
rising to influence, and climbing into his master's seat. Every man was
every other man's equal--if he could prove it; but the process of proving
it often turned Cairo into a shambles.
The Mamluks were physically superb, a race of born soldiers, dashing
horsemen, skilled leaders, brilliant alike in battle and in all manly
sports. They were at the same time the most luxurious of men, heavy
drinkers, debauched sensualists, magnificent in their profusion, in their
splendid prodigality in works of art and luxury, and in the munificence
with which they filled their capital with noble monuments of the most
exquisite Saracenic architecture. Most of the beautiful mosques of Cairo
were built by these truculent soldiers, all foreigners, chiefly Turks, a
caste apart, with no thought for the native Egyptians whose lands they
received as fiefs from the sultan; with no mercy when ambition called for
secret assassination or wholesale massacre; yet fastidious in dress,
equipment, and manners, given to superb pageants, laborious in business,
and fond of music and poetry. Their orthodoxy is attested not only by their
innumerable religious foundations and endowments, but by their importing
into Cairo a line of Abbasid caliphs--fainéants indeed, but
in a manner representative of the great caliphs of Baghdad, extinguished by
the Mongols in 1258--and in maintaining them till the Ottoman sultan
usurped their very nominal authority as Commanders of the Faithful.
The greatest of all the Mamluks was Beybars (1260-1277). He it was who
had charged St. Louis's knights at Mansura in 1249, and afterwards helped
to rout the Mongol hordes at the critical battle of Goliath's Spring in
1260; and he was the real founder of the Mamluk empire, and organised and
consolidated his wide dominions so skilfully and firmly that all the
follies and jealousies and crimes of his successors could not destroy the
fabric. He made his army perfect in discipline, built a navy, made canals,
roads, and bridges, annexed Nubia, organised a regular postal service,
built fortifications, mosques, colleges, halls of justice, and managed
everything, from the fourth cataract of the Nile and the Holy Cities of
Arabia to the Pyramus and the Euphrates, by his immense capacity for work
and amazing rapidity of movements.
Egypt prospered exceedingly under his just, firm, and capable rule; he
was severe to immorality and strictly prohibited wine, beer, and hashish.
He entered into diplomatic relations with European powers to the great
advantage of his country's trade; and his bravery, munificence, and justice
have made him a popular hero in Arabic romances down to the present
day.
None of his successors approached his high example Khalil indeed
recovered Acre and all that remained of the Crusader's possessions in
Palestine, and the Mamluks, who never lost their soldierly qualities
whoever happened to be their nominal ruler, handsomely defeated the Mongols
again in 1299 and 1303, and for ever saved Egypt from the unspeakable curse
of a Mongol conquest Nasir, whose reign covers most of the first half of
the fourteenth century, was a great builder, and so were many of the nobles
of his court. It was the golden age of Saracenic architecture, and Cairo is
still full of the monuments of Nasir's emirs. He encouraged agriculture,
stockbreeding, farming, falconry, as well as literature and art,
everything, in short, except vice, wine, and Christians.
The Burgi, or Circassian Mamluks (1382-1517), were little more than
chief among the emirs. Widespread corruption, the open sale of high offices
and of "justice," and general debauchery characterised their rule. Yet they
built many of the loveliest mosques in Cairo, and the conquest of Cyprus,
long a nest of Mediterranean piracy, by Bars Bey in 1426 may be added to
their credit. Kait Bey (1468-1496) was a great builder, and in every way a
wise, brave, and energetic, public-spirited sovereign, and was an exception
to the general baseness.
Egypt was rich in his day. The European trade had swelled enormously,
and the duties brought in a prodigious revenue. The Italian Republics had
their consulates or their marts in Alexandria, and Marseilles, Narbonne,
and Catalonia sent their representatives. The Indian trade was also very
considerable; we read of £36,000 paid at one time in customs dues at
Gidda, then an Egyptian port on the Red Sea. The Mamluk sultan took toll on
every bale of goods that passed between Europe and India in the palmy days
that preceded Vasco de Gama's discovery of the Cape route in 1497. It was
an immense monopoly, extortionately used, and it was not resigned without a
struggle. The Mamluk fleet engaged the Portuguese off Chaul in the Bay of
Bengal in 1508 and defeated them; but Almeida avenged the honour of his
country by a victory over the Mamluk admiral Hoseyn off Diu in the
following year, and the prolific transit trade of Egypt was to a great
extent lost.
This final effort was made by the last great sultan of the Circassian
dynasty, Kansuh Ghuri (1501-1516), who also exerted himself manfully in
defending his country from the impending disaster of Ottoman invasion. But
the Othmanli Turks, greatly heartened by the conquest of Constantinople in
1453, had been steadily encroaching in Asia, and, after defeating the shah
of Persia, their advance upon Syria and Egypt was only a matter of time.
The victory was made easier by jealousies and treachery among the Mamluks.
Kansuh fell at the head of his gallant troops in a battle near Aleppo in
August 1516; a last desperate stand of the Mamluks under the Mukattam Hill
at Cairo in January 1517, was overcome, and Sultan Selim made Egypt a
province of the Turkish empire. Such it remains, formally, to this day.

RAPHAEL HOLINSHED

Chronicles of
England, Scotland, and Ireland

Raphael Holinshed, who was born about 1520, is one of the
most celebrated of English chroniclers. The "Chronicles of England,
Scotland, and Ireland," known by his name, cover a long period of English
history, beginning with a "Description" of Britain from the earliest times,
and carried on until the reign of Elizabeth, in the course of which,
between 1580 and 1584, Holinshed died. The work did good service to
Shakespeare, who drew from it much of the material for his historical
plays. The first edition, published in 1577, was succeeded in 1587 by
another, in which the "Chronicles" were continued by John Hooker and
others. An edition appeared in 1807, in the foreword to which the
"Chronicles" are described as containing "the most curious and authentic
account of the manners and customs of our island in the reign of Henry
VIII. and Elizabeth "; and being the work of a contemporary observer this
is not too much to claim for it. Owing to the great scope of this work, it
is impossible to convey an impression of the whole, which is best
represented by means of selected examples of the chronicler's method. Being
the work of so many different authors, the literary quality of the
"Chronicles" naturally varies; but the learning and research they show make
them an invaluable aid to the study of the manners and customs of early
England.

I.--Master Holinshed to his Good Lord and Master, Sir William
Brooke, Knight

Being earnestlie required, Right Honorable, of divers my freends, to set
down some breefe discourse of some of those things which I had observed in
the reading of manifold antiquities, I was at first verie loth to yeeld to
their desires. But, they pressing their irksome sute, I condescended to it,
and went in hand with the work, with hopes of good, although no gaie
success. In the process of this Booke, if your Honor regard the substance
of that which is here declared, I must needs confess that it is none of
mine owne; but if your lordship have consideration of the barbarous
composition shewed herein, that I may boldlie claim and challenge for mine
owne. Certes, I protest before God and your Honor, that I never made any
choise of stile, or words, neither regarded to handle this Treatise in such
precise order and method as manie other would have done, thinking it
sufficient, truelie and plainelie to set forth such things as I minded to
intreat of, rather than with vain affectation of eloquence to paint out a
rotten sepulchre, a thing neither commendable in a writer, nor profitable
to the reader. But howsoever it be done, I have had an especial eye unto
the truth of things, and for the rest, I hope that this foule frizeled
Treatise of mine will prove a spur to others better learned to handle the
self-same argument, if in my life-time I doo not peruse it again.

II.--Some Account of the Historie of Britaine

As few or no nations can justlie boast themselves to have continued
sithence their countrie was first replenished, without anie mixture, more
or lesse, of forreine inhabitant mixture, more or lesse, of forreine
inhabitants; no more can this our Iland, whose manifold commodities have
oft allured sundrie princes and famous capteines of the world to conquer
and subdue the same unto their owne subjection. Manie sorts of people
therefore have come in hither and settled themselves here in this Ile, and
first of all other, a parcell of the lineage and posteritie of Japhet,
brought in by Samothes, in the 1910 after the creation of Adam. Howbeit in
process of time, and after they had indifferentlie replenished and
furnished this Iland with people, Albion, the giant, repaired hither with a
companie of his owne race proceeding from Cham, and not onelie annexed the
same to his owne dominion, but brought all such as he found here of the
line of Japhet, into miserable servitude and most extreame thraldome. After
him also, and within lesse than six hundred and two yeares, came Brute, the
son of Sylvius, with a great train of the posteritie of the dispersed
Trojans in 324 ships; who rendering the like courtesie unto Chemminits as
they had done before unto the seed of Japhet, brought them also wholie
under his rule and governance, and dispossessing them he divided the
countrie among such princes and capteines as he had led out of Grecia with
him.
Then after some further space of time the Roman Emperours subdued the
land to their dominion; and after the coming of the Romans, it is hard to
say with how manie sorts of people we were dailie pestered. For their
armies did commonlie consist of manie sorts of people, and were (as I may
call them) a confused mixture of all other countries and nations then
living in the world. Howbeit I thinke it best, because they did all beare
the title of Romans, to retaine onelie that name for them all, albeit they
were wofull guests to this our Iland: sith that with them came all kinds of
vice, all riot and excess of behaviour into our countrie, which their
legions brought with them from each corner of their dominions.
Then did follow the Saxons, and the Danes, and at last the Normans, of
whom it is worthilie doubted whether they were more hard and cruell to our
countrymen than the Danes, or more heavie and intollerable to our Iland
than the Saxons or the Romans. For they were so cruellie bent to our utter
subversion and overthrow, that in the beginning it was lesse reproach to be
accounted a slave than an Englishman, or a drudge in anie filthie businesse
than a Britaine: insomuch that everie French page was superiour to the
greatest Peere; and the losse of an Englishman's life but a pastime to such
of them as contended in their braverie who should give the greatest strokes
or wounds unto their bodies when their toiling and drudgerie could not
please them or satisfie their greedie humours. Yet such was our lot in
those daies by the divine appointed order, that we must needs obey such as
the Lord did set pyer us, and this all because we refused grace offered in
time, and would not heare when God by his preachers did call us so
favourablie unto him.
By all this then we perceive, how from time to time this Hand hath not
onelie been a prey, but as it were a common receptacle for strangers, the
naturall homelings or Britons being still cut shorter and shorter, till in
the end they came not onelie to be driven into a corner of this region, but
in time also verie like utterlie to have been extinguished. Thus we see how
England hath been manie times subject to the reproach of conquest. And
whereas the Scots seeme to challenge manie famous victories also over us,
it shall suffice for answer, that they deale in this as in the most part of
their historie, which is to seeke great honour by lying, and great renown
by prating and craking. Indeed they have done great mischief in this Hand,
and with extreime crueltie; but as for anie conquest the first is yet to
heare of.
But beside those conquests aforementioned, Huntingdon, the old
historiographer, speaketh of another, likelie (as he saith) to come one
daie out of the North, which is a wind that bloweth no man to good, sith
nothing is to be had in those parts, but hunger and much cold.

III.--Of King Richard, the First, and his Journie to the Holie
Land

Richard the First of that name, and second sonne of Henrie the Second,
began his reign over England the sixt day of Julie, in the yere of our Lord
1189. He received the crowne with all due and accustomed sollemnitie, at
the hands of Baldwin, the archbishop of Canterburie, the third daie of
September.
Upon this daie of King Richard's coronation, the Jewes that dwelt in
London and in other parts of the realme, being there assembled, had but
sorie hap, as it chanced. For they meaning to honour the same coronation
with their presence, and to present to the king some honourable gift,
whereby they might declare themselves glad for his advancement, and procure
his freendship towards them, for the confirming of their privileges and
liberties; he of a zealous mind to Christes religion, abhorring their
nation (and doubting some sorcerie by them to be practised) commanded that
they should not come within the church when he should receive the crowne,
nor within the palace whilest he was at dinner.
But at dinner-time, among other that pressed in at the palace gate,
diverse of the Jews were about to thrust in, till one of them was striken
by a Christian, who alledging the king's commandment, kept them backe from
comming within the palace. Which some of the unrulie people, perceiving,
and supposing it had been done by the king's commandement, tooke lightlie
occasion thereof, and falling upon the Jewes with staves, bats, and stones,
beat them and chased them home to their houses and lodgings. Then did they
set fire on the houses, and the Jewes within were either smoldred and
burned to death within, or else at their comming forth most cruellie
received upon the points of speares, billes, and swords of their
adversaries that watched for them verie diligentlie. This great riot well
deserved sere and grievous punishment, but yet it passed over without
correction, because of the hatred generallie conceived against the
obstinate frowardnesse of the Jewes. Finallie, after the tumult was ceased,
the king commanded that no man should hurt or harm any of the Jewes, and so
they were restored to peace after they had susteined infinit damage.
No great while after this his coronation, the king sought to prepare
himself to journey to the holie land, and to this end he had great need of
money. Therefore he made such sale of things appertaining to him, as well
in right of the crowne, as otherwise, that it seemed to divers that he made
his reckoning never to return agan, in so much that some of his councillors
told him plainelie, that he did not well in making things awaie so freelie;
unto whom he answered "that in time of need it was no evill policie for a
man to help himself with his owne." and further, "that if London at that
time of need would be bought, he would surelie sell it, if he might meet
with a convenient merchant that were able to give him monie enough for
it."
Then all things being readie, King Richard set forth, and, after great
hindrance by tempests, and at the hands of the men of Cyprus, who warred
against him and were overcome, he came to the citie of Acres, which then
was besieged by the Christian armie. Such was the valiancie of King Richard
shown in manfull constraining of the citie, that his praise was greatly
bruted both amongst the Christians and also the Saracens.
At last, on the twelfth date of Julie, in the yeare of grace 1192, the
citie of Acres was surrendered into the Christian men's hands. These things
being concluded, the French King Philip, upon envie and malice conceived
against King Richard (although he pretended sickness for excuse) departed
homewards. Now touching this departure, divers occasions are remembered by
writers of the emulation and secret spite which he should bear towards King
Richard. But, howsoever, it came to passe, partlie through envie (as hath
beene thought) conceived at the great deeds of King Richard, whose mightie
power and valiantnesse he could not well abide, and partlie for other
respects him moving, he took the sea with three gallies of the Genevois,
and returned into Italie, and so home into France, having promised first
unto King Richard in the holie land, and after to pope Celestine at Rome,
that he would not attempt any hurtfull enterprise against the English
dominions, till King Richard should be returned out of the holie land. But
this promise was not kept, for he sought to procure Earle John, King
Richard's brother, to rebell against him, though he then sought it in
vaine.
Yet were matters nowise peacefull within the realme of England, and
because of this, and likewise because the froward humours of the French so
greatlie hindered him in warring against the Saracens, King Richard
determined fullie to depart homewards, and at last there was a peace
concluded with Saladin. But on his journie homewards the King had but sorie
hap, for he made shipwracke on the coast of Istria, and then fell into
captivitie; and this was the manner that it came to passe.

IV.--Of King Richard's Captivitie

King Richard, doubting to fall into the hands of those who might bear
him ill-will, made the best shift he could to passe through quietlie, yet
were many of his servants made captive, and he himself came with but three
men to Vienna. There causing his servants to provide meat for him more
sumptuous and fine than was thought requisite for so meane a person as he
counterfeited then, he was straightway remarked, and some gave knowledge to
the Duke of Austrich named Leopold, who loved him not for some matter that
had passed in the holie land. Moreover, his page, going about the towne to
change gold, and buy vittels, bewraied him, having by chance the King's
gloves under his girdle: whereupon, being examined, for fear of tortures he
confessed the truth.
The Duke sent men to apprehend him, but he, being warie that he was
descried, got him to his weapon; but they alledging the Duke's
commandement, he boldly answered, "that sith he must be taken, he being a
King, would yeeld himselfe to none of the companie but to the Duke alone."
The Duke hearing of this, speedilie came unto him, whom he meeting,
delivered up his sword, and committed him unto his custodie. Then was he
brought before the princes and lords of the empire, in whose presence the
emperour charged him with diverse unlawfull doings. King Richard
notwithstanding the vaine and frivolous objections laid to his charge, made
his answers always so pithilie and directlie to all that could be laid
against him, and excused himself e in everie point so thoroughlie, that the
emperour much marvelled at his high wisdom and prudence, and not onelie
greatlie commended him for the same, but from thenceforth used him more
courteously. Yet did King Richard perceive that no excuses would serve, but
that he must paie to his covetous host some great summe of monie for his
hard entertainment. Therefore he sent the bishop of Salisburie into England
to provide for the paiment of his ransome.
Finallie the King, after he had beene prisoner one yeare, six weekes,
and three daies, was set at libertie on Candle-mass day, and then with long
and hastie journies, not keeping the high waies, he hasted forth towards
England. It is reported that if he had lingered by the way, he had beene
eftsoones apprehended. For the emperour being incensed against him by
ambassadors that came from the French king, immediatlie after he was set
forward, began to repent himselfe in that he had suffered him so soon to
depart from him, and hereupon sent men after him with all speed to bring
him backe if they could by any means overtake him, meaning as then to have
kept him in perpetual prison. But these his knavish tricks being in the
good providence of God defeated, King Richard at length in good safetie
landed at Sandwich, and the morrow after came to Canterburie, where he was
received with procession. From thence he came unto London, where he was
received with great joy and gladnesse of the people, giving heartie thanks
to almightie God for his safe return and deliverance.
The same yeare that King Richard was taken by the Duke of Austrich, one
night in the month of Januarie about the first watch of the night, the
northwest side of the element appeared of such a ruddie colour as though it
had burned, without any clouds or other darknesse to cover it, so that the
stars showed through that redness and might be verie well discerned.
Diverse bright strakes appeared to flash upwards now and then, dividing the
rednesse, through the which the stars seemed to be of a bright sanguine
colour.
In Februarie next insuing, one night after midnight the like wonder was
seene and shortlie after newes came that the king was taken in Almaigne.
And the same daie and selfe houre that the king arrived at Sandwich,
whitest the sunne shone verie bright and cleare, there appeared a most
brightsome and unaccustomed clearnesse, not farre distant from the sunne,
as it were to the length and breadth of a man's personage, having a red
shining brightnesse withall, like to the rainbow, which strange sight when
manie beheld, there were that prognosticated the king alreadie to be
arrived.

V.--Of Good Queen Elisabeth, and How She Came into Her
Kingdom

After all the stormie, tempestuous, and blustering windie weather of
Queene Marie was overblowne, the darksome clouds of discomfort dispersed,
the palpable fogs and mists of most intollerable miserie consumed, and the
dashing showers of persecution overpast, it pleased God to send England a
calm and quiet season, a cleare and lovelie sunshine, and a world of
blessings by good Queene Elisabeth, into whose gracious reign we are now to
make an happie entrance as followeth.
On her entering the citie of London, she was received of the people with
prayers, wishes, welcomings, cries, and tender words, all which argued a
wonderfull earnest love of most obedient subjects towards their sovereign.
And on the other side, her grace, by holding up her hands, and merrie
countenance to such as stood farre off, and most tender and gentle language
to those that stood nigh unto her grace, did declare herselfe no lesse
thankfullie to receive her people's good will, than they lovinglie offered
it to her. And it was not onelie to those her subjects who were of noble
birth that she showed herself thus verie gracious, but also to the poorest
sort. How manie nose gaies did her grace receive at poore women's hands?
How oftentimes staid she her chariot, when she saw anie simple bodie offer
to speake to her grace? A branch of rosemarie given her grace with a
supplication about Fleetbridge, was seene in her chariot till her grace
came to Westminster, not without the marvellous wondering of such as knew
the presenter, and noted the queene's most gracious receiving and keeping
the same. Therefore may the poore and needie looke for great hope at her
grace's hand, who hath shown so loving a carefulnesse for them.
Moreover, because princes be set in their seat by God's appointing, and
they must therefore first and chieflie tender the glorie of Him from whom
their glorie issueth; it is to be noted in her grace that for so much as
God hath so wonderfullie placed her in the seat of government of this
realme, she in all her doings doth show herselfe most mindful of His
goodness and mercie shewed unto her. And one notable signe thereof her
grace gave at the verie time of her passage through London, for in the
Tower, before she entered her chariot, she lifted up her eies to Heaven and
saith as followeth:
"O Lord Almightie and everlasting God, I give Thee most heartie thanks
that Thou hast beene so mercifull unto me as to spare me to behold this joy
full daie. And I acknowledge that Thou hast dealt as wonderfullie and as
mercifullie with me as Thou diddest with Thy true and faithfull servant
Daniell Thy prophet, whom Thou deliveredst out of the den from the crueltie
of the greedie and raging lions; even so was I overwhelmed, and onlie by
Thee delivered. To Thee, therefore, onlie be thankes, honor, and praise,
for ever. Amen."
On Sundaie, the five and twentieth daie of Januarie, her majestie was
with great solemnitie crowned at Westminster, in the Abbey church there, by
doctor Oglethorpe bishop of Carlisle. She dined in Westminster hall, which
was richlie hung, and everything ordered in such royall manner, as to such
a regall and most solemn feast appertained. In the meane time, whilst her
grace sat at dinner, Sir Edward Dimmocke, knight, her champion by office,
came riding into the hall in faire complete armour, mounted upon a
beautifull courser, richlie trapped in cloth of gold, and in the midst of
the hall cast downe his gauntlet, with offer to fight in her quarell with
anie man that should denie her to be the righteous and lawfull queene of
this realme. The queene, taking a cup of gold full of wine, dranke to him
thereof, and sent it to him for his fee. Finallie, this feast being
celebrated with all due and fitting royall ceremonies, tooke end with great
joy and contentation to all the beholders.
Yet, though there was thus an end of the ceremonies befitting the
queene's coronation, her majesty was everywhere received with brave shows,
and with pageants, all for the love and respect that her subjects bare her.
Thus on Whitsundaie, in the first year of her reign, the citizens of London
set forth a muster before the queene's majestie at Greenwich in the parke
there, of the number of 1,400 men, whereof 800 were pikes, armed in fine
corselets, 400 shot in shirts of mail, and 200 halberdiers armed in Almaine
rivets; these were furnished forth by the crafts and companies of the
citie. To everie hundred two wifflers were assigned, richlie appointed and
apparelled for the purpose. There were also twelve wardens of the best
companies mounted on horsebacke in coates of blacke velvet, to conduct
them, with drums and fifes, and sixe ensigne all in lerkins of white sattin
of Bridges, cut and lined with black sarsenet, and caps, hosen, and scarfs
according. The sergeant-majors, captaine Constable, and captaine Sanders,
brought them in order before the queene's presence, placing them in battell
arraie, even as they should have fought; so the shew was verie faire, the
emperour's and the French king's ammbassadors being present.
Verilie the queene hath ever shown herself forward and most willing that
her faithfull subjects should be readie and skilfull in war as in peace.
Thus in the fourteenth yeare of her reign, by order of her council, the
citizens of London, assembling in their several halles, the masters chose
out the most likelie and active persons of their companies to be pikemen
and shot. To these were appointed diverse valiant captaines, who to train
them up in warlike feats, mustered them thrice everie weeke, sometimes in
the artillerie yard, teaching the gunners to handle their pieces, sometimes
at the Miles end, and in saint George's field, teaching them to
skirmish.
In the arts of peace likewise, she is greatlie pleased with them who are
good craftsmen, and shews them favour. In government we have peace and
securitie, and do not greatlie fear those who may stir up wicked rebellion
within our land, or may come against us from beyond the sea.
In brief, they of Norwich did say well, when the queene's majestie came
thither, and in a pageant in her honour, one spake these words:

"Dost them not see the joie of all this flocke?
Vouchsafe to view their passing gladsome cheere,
Be still (good queene) their refuge and their rocke,
As they are thine to serve in love and feare;
So fraud, nor force, nor forreine foe may stand
Against the strength of thy most puissant hand."

EDWARD A. FREEMAN

The Norman Conquest of
England

Edward Augustus Freeman was born at Harborne,
Staffordshire, England, Aug. 2, 1823. His precocity as a child was
remarkable; at seven he read English and Roman history, and at eleven he
had acquired a knowledge of Greek and Latin, and had taught himself the
rudiments of Hebrew. An increase in fortune in 1848 enabled him to settle
down and devote himself to historical research, and from that time until
his death on March 17, 1892, his life was one spell of literary
strenuousness. His first published work, other than a share in two volumes
of verse, was "A History of Architecture," which appeared in 1849.
Freeman's reputation as historian rests principally on his monumental
"History of the Norman Conquest." It was published in fifteen volumes
between 1867 and 1876, and, in common with all his works, is distinguished
by critical ability, exhaustiveness of research, and an extraordinary
degree of insight. His historical scenes are remarkably clear and vivid, as
though, according to one critic "he had actually lived in the times."

Preliminary Events

The Norman Conquest is important, not as the beginning of English
history, but as its chief turning point. Its whole importance is that which
belongs to a turning point. This conquest is an event which stands by
itself in the history of Europe. It took place at a transitional period in
the world's development. A kingdom which had hitherto been only Teutonic,
was brought within the sphere of the laws, manners, and speech of the
Romance nations.
At the very moment when Pope and Cæsar held each other in the
death grasp, a church which had hitherto maintained a sort of insular and
barbaric independence was brought into a far more intimate connection with
the Roman See. The conquest of England by William wrought less immediate
change than when the first English conquerors slew, expelled, or enslaved
the whole nation of the vanquished Britons or than when Africa was subdued
by Genseric. But it wrought a greater immediate change than the conquest of
Sicily by Charles of Anjou. It brought with it not only a new dynasty, but
a new nobility. It did not expel or transplant the English nation or any
part of it; but it gradually deprived the leading men and families of
England of their land and offices, and thrust them down into a secondary
position under the alien intruders.
It must not be forgotten that the old English constitution survived the
Norman Conquest. What the constitution had been under the Saxon Eadgar,
that it remained under William. The laws, with a few changes in detail, and
also the language of the public documents, remained the same. The powers
vested in King William and his Witan remained constitutionally the same as
those which had been vested in King Eadgar and his Witan a hundred years
before. Immense changes ensued in social condition and administration, and
in the relation of the kingdom to foreign lands. There was also a vast
increase of royal power, and new relations were introduced between the king
and every class of his subjects; but formal constitutional changes there
were none.
I cannot too often repeat, for the saying is the very summing up of the
whole history, that the Norman Conquest was not the wiping out of the
constitution, the laws, the language, the national life of Englishmen. The
English kingship gradually changed from the old Teutonic to the later
mediæval type; but the change began before the Norman Conquest. It
was hastened by that event; it was not completed till long after it, and
the gradual transition, was brought to perfection by Henry II.
Certain events indicate the remoter causes of the Norman Conquest. The
accession of Eadward at once brings us among the events that led
immediately to that conquest, or rather we may look on the accession of
this Saxon king as the first stage of the conquest itself. Swend and Cnut,
the Danes, had shown that it was possible for a foreign power to overcome
England by force of arms.
The misgovernment of the sons of Cnut hindered the formation of a
lasting Danish dynasty in England. The throne of Cerdic was again filled by
a son of Woden; but there can be no doubt that the shock given to the
country by the Danish Conquest, especially the way in which the ancient
nobility was cut off in the long struggle with Swend and Cnut, directly
opened the way for the coming of the Norman. Eadward did his best,
wittingly or unwillingly, to make his path still easier. This he did by
accustoming Englishmen to the sight of strangers--not national kinsmen like
Cnut's Danes, but Frenchmen, men of utterly alien speech and
manners--enjoying every available place of honour or profit in the
country.
The great national reaction under Godwine and Harold made England once
more England for a few years. But this change, happy as it was, could not
altogether do away with the effects of the French predilections of Eadward.
With Eadward, then, the Norman Conquest really begins. The men of the
generation before the Conquest, the men whose eyes were not to behold the
event itself, but who were to do all that they could do to advance or
retard it, are now in the full maturity of life, in the full possession of
power.
Eadward is on the throne of England; Godwine, Leofric, and Siward divide
among them the administration of the realm. The next generation, the
warriors of Stamfordbridge and Senlac, of York and Ely, are fast growing
into maturity. Harold Hadrada is already pursuing his wild career of
night-errantry in distant lands, and is astonishing the world by his
exploits in Russia and Sicily, at Constantinople and at Jerusalem.
The younger warriors of the Conquest, Eadwine and Morcere and Waltheof
and Hereward, were probably born, but they must still have been in their
cradles or in their mothers' arms. But, among the leaders of Church and
State, Ealdred, who lived to place the crown on the head both of Harold and
of William, is already a great prelate, abbot of the great house of
Tewkesbury, soon to succeed Lyfing in the chair of Worcester.
Tostig must have been on the verge of manhood; Swegen and Harold were
already men, bold and vigorous, ready to march at their father's bidding,
and before long to affect the destiny of their country for evil and for
good. Beyond the sea, William, still a boy in years but a man in conduct
and counsel, is holding his own among the storms of a troubled minority,
and learning those arts of the statesman and the warrior which fitted him
to become the wisest ruler of Normandy, the last and greatest conqueror of
England.
The actors in the great drama are ready for their parts; the ground is
gradually preparing for the scene of their performance. The great struggle
of nations and tongues and principles in which each of them had his share,
the struggle in which William of Normandy and Harold of England stand forth
as worthy rivals of the noblest of prizes, will form the subject of the
next, the chief and central portion of my history.
The struggle between Normans and Englishmen began with the accession of
Eadward in 1042, although the actual subjugation of England by force of
arms was still twenty-four years distant. The thought of another Danish
king was now hateful. "All folk chose Eadward to King." As the son of
Æthelred and Emma, the brother of the murdered and half-canonised
Alfred, he had long been-familiar to English imaginations. Eadward, and
Eadward alone, stood forth as the heir of English royalty, the
representative of English nationality. In his behalf the popular voice
spoke out at once, and unmistakably. His popular election took place in
June, immediately on the death of Harthacnut, and even before his burial.
Eadward, then, was king, and he reigned as every English king before him
had reigned, by that union of popular election and royal descent which
formed the essence of all ancient Teutonic kingship. He was crowned at
Winchester, April 3, 1043. But by virtue of his peculiar character, his
natural place was not on the throne of England, but at the head of a Norman
abbey, for all his best qualities were those of a monk. Like him father, he
was constantly under the dominion of favourites.
It was to the evil choice of his favourites during the early part of his
reign that most of the misfortunes of his time were owing, and that a still
more direct path was opened for the ambition of his Norman kinsman. In the
latter part of his reign, either by happy accident or returning good sense,
led him to a better choice. Without a guide he could not reign, but the
good fortune of his later years gave him the wisest and noblest of all
guides.
We have now reached the first appearance of the illustrious man round
whom the main interest of this history will henceforth centre. The second
son of Godwine lived to be the last of our kings, the hero and martyr of
our native freedom. The few recorded actions of Harold, Earl of the East
Angles, could hardly have enabled me to look forward to the glorious career
of Harold, Earl of the West Saxons, King of the English.
Tall in stature, beautiful in countenance, of a bodily strength whose
memory still lives in the rude pictorial art of his time, he was foremost
alike in the active courage and in the passive endurance of the warrior. It
is plain that in him, no less than in his more successful, and, therefore,
more famous, rival, we have to admire not only the mere animal courage, but
that true skill of the leader of armies which would have placed both Harold
and William high among the captains of any age.
Great as Harold was in war, his character as a civil ruler is still more
remarkable, still more worthy of admiration. The most prominent feature in
his character is his singular gentleness and mercy. Never, either in
warfare or in civil strife, do we find Harold bearing hardly upon an enemy.
From the time of his advancement to the practical government of the kingdom
there is not a single harsh or cruel action with which he can be
charged.
Such was the man who, seemingly in the fourth year of Eadward, in the
twenty-fourth of his own age, was invested with the rule of one of the
great divisions of England, who, seven years later, became the virtual
ruler of the kingdom; who, at last, twenty-one years from his first
elevation, received, alone among English kings, the crown of England as the
free gift of her people, and, alone among English kings, died axe in hand
on her soil in the defence of England against foreign invaders.
William of Normandy bears a name which must for ever stand forth among
the foremost of mankind. No man that ever trod this earth was endowed with
greater natural gifts; to no man was it ever granted to accomplish greater
things. No man ever did his work more effectually at the moment; no man
ever left his work behind him as more truly an abiding possession for all
time. In his character one feature stands out pre-eminently above all
others. Throughout his career we admire in him the embodiment in the
highest degree that human nature will allow of the fixed purpose and the
unbending will.
We are too apt to look upon William as simply the conqueror of England.
But so to do is to look at him only in his most splendid, but at the same
time his least honourable, aspect. William learned to become the conqueror
of England only by first becoming the conqueror of Normandy and the
conqueror of France. He found means to conquer Normandy by the help of
France, and to conquer France by the help of Normandy. He came to his duchy
under every disadvantage. At once bastard and minor, with competitors for
his coronet arising at every moment, he was throughout the whole of his
early life beset by troubles, none of which were of his own making, and he
came honourably out of all.
In 1052, William paid his memorable visit to England. At that time both
Normandy and England were at rest, enjoying peace. Visits of mere
friendship and courtesy among sovereign princes were rare in those days.
Such visits as those which William and Eustace of Boulogne paid at this
time to this country were altogether novelties, and unlikely to be
acceptable to the English mind. We may be sure that every patriotic
Englishman looked with an evil eye on any French-speaking prince who made
his way to the English court.
William came with a great following; he tarried awhile in his cousin's
company; he went away loaded with gifts and honours. And he can hardly
doubt that he went away encouraged by some kind of promise of succeeding to
the kingdom which he now visited as a stranger. Direct heirs were lacking
to the royal house, and William was Eadward's kinsman. The moment was in
every way favourable for suggesting to William on the one hand, to Eadward
on the other, the idea of an arrangement by which William should succeed to
the English crown on Eadward's death. The Norman writers are full of
Eadward's promise to William, and also of some kind of oath that Harold
swore to him. Had either the promise or the oath been a pure Norman
invention, William could never have paraded both in the way that he did in
the eyes of Europe. I admit, then, some promise of Eadward, some oath of
Harold. But when the time came for Eadward the Confessor to make his final
recommendation of a successor, he certainly changed his purpose; for his
last will, so far as such an expression can be used, was undoubtedly in
favour of Harold.
There is not the slightest sign of any intention on the part of Eadward
during his later years to nominate William to the Witan as future king. The
two streams of English and Norman history were joined together in the year
when the two sovereigns met for the only time in their reigns. Those
streams again diverged. England shook off the Norman influence to all
outward appearance, and became once more the England of Æthelstan and
Eadgar. But the effects of Eadgar's Norman tendencies were by no means
wholly wiped away. Normans still remained in the land, and circumstances
constituted secondary causes of the expedition of William.
It was in the year 1051 that the influence of strangers reached its
height. During the first nine years of Eadward's reign we find no signs of
any open warfare between the national and the Normanising parties. The
course of events shows that Godwine's power was being practically
undermined, but the great earl was still Jutwardly in the enjoyment of
royal favour, and his fast possessions were still being added to by royal
grants. But soon England began to feel how great is the evil when a king
and those immediately around him are estranged from the mass of his people
in feeling.
To the French favourites who gradually crowded the court of Eadward the
name, the speech, and the laws of England were things on which their
ignorant pride looked with utter contempt.
Count Eustace of Boulogne, now brother-in-law of the king of the
English, presently came, like the rest of the world, to the English Court.
The king was spending the autumn at Gloucester. Thither came Count Eustace,
and, after his satisfactory interview with the king, he turned his face
homewards. When a few miles from Dover he felt himself, in a region
specially devoted to Godwine, to be still more thoroughly in an enemy's
country than in other parts of England, and he and all his company took the
precaution of putting on their coats of mail.
The proud Frenchmen expected to find free quarters at Dover, and they
attempted to lodge themselves at their pleasure in the houses of the
burghers. One Englishman resisted, and was struck dead on the spot. The
count's party then rode through the town, cutting and slaying at pleasure.
In a skirmish which quickly ensued twenty Englishmen and nineteen Frenchmen
were slain.
Count Eustace and the remnant of the party hastened back to Gloucester,
and told the story after their own fashion. On the mere accusation of a
stranger, the English king condemned his own subjects without a hearing. He
sent for Godwine, as earl of the district in which lay the offending town,
and commanded him to inflict chastisement on Dover. The English champion
was then in the midst of a domestic rejoicing. He had, like the king, been
strengthening himself by a foreign alliance, and had just connected his
house with that of a foreign prince. Tostig, the third son of Godwine, had
just married Judith, the daughter of Baldwin of Flanders.
Godwine, however, bidden without the least legal proof of offence, to
visit with all the horrors of fire and sword, was not long in choosing his
course. Official duty and public policy, no less than abstract justice and
humanity, dictated a distinct refusal. Now or never a stand was to be made
against strangers, and the earl demanded a legal trial for the burghers of
Dover.
But there were influences about Eadward which cut off all hope of a
peaceful settlement of the matter. Eustace probably still lingered about
the king, and there was another voice ever at the royal ear, ever ready to
poison the royal mind against the people of England and their leader. It
was the voice of a foreign monk, Archbishop Robert. Godwine and three other
earls summoned their followers and demanded the surrender of Eustace, but
the frightened king sent for the Northern Earls Siward, Leofric, and Ralph,
bidding them bring a force strong enough to keep Godwine in check. Thus the
northern and southern sections were arrayed against each other.
There were, however, on the king's side, men who were not willing to see
the country involved in civil war. Leofric, the good Earl of Mercia, stood
forth as the champion of compromise and peace, and it was agreed that
hostilities should be avoided and that the witenagemot should assemble at
Michaelmas in London.
Of this truce King Eadward and his foreign advisers took advantage to
collect an army, at the head of which they appeared in London. Godwine and
his son Harold were summoned to the gemot, but refused to appear without a
security for a safe conduct. The hostages and safe-conduct were refused.
The refusal was announced by Bishop Stigand to the earl as he sat at his
evening meal. The bishop wept; the earl sprang to his feet, overthrew the
table, leaped on his horse, and, with his sons, rode for his life all that
night. In the morning the king held his witenagemot, and by a vote of the
king and his whole army, Godwine and his sons were declared outlaws, but
five days were allowed them to get out of the land. Godwine, Swegen,
Tostig, and Gyrth, together with Gytha and Judith, the newly-married wife
of Tostig, set sail for Bruges in a ship laden with as much treasure as it
would hold. They reached the court of Flanders in safety, were honourably
received by the count, and passed the whole winter with him.
Two of Godwine's sons, however, sought another refuge. Harold and his
younger brother Leofwine determined on resistance, and resolved to seek
shelter among the Danish settlers in Ireland, where they were cordially
received by King Diarmid. For the moment the overthrow of the patriotic
leaders in England was complete, and the dominion of the foreigners over
the feeble mind of the king was complete. It was while Godwine dwelt as an
exile at Bruges, and Harold was planning schemes of vengeance in the
friendly court of Dublin, that William the Bastard, afterwards known as
William the Conqueror, paid his memorable visit to England, that visit
which has already been referred to as a stage, and a most important one,
among the immediate causes of the Norman Conquest.
Stirring events followed in quick succession. General regret was felt
among all patriotic Englishmen at the absence of Godwine. The common voice
of England soon began to call for the return of the banished earl, who was
looked to by all men as the father of his country. England now knew that in
his fall a fatal blow had been dealt to her own welfare and freedom. And
Godwine, after sending many petitions to the king, vainly petitioning for a
reconciliation, determined to return by force, satisfied that the great
majority of Englishmen would be less likely to resist him than to join his
banners.
Harold sailed from Ireland to meet his father by way of the English
Channel. Godwine sailed up the Thames, and London declared for him. Panic
reigned among the favourites of King Eadward. The foreigners took to
flight, among the fugitives being Archbishop Robert and Bishop Ulf. The
gemot met and decreed the restoration of the earl and the outlawry of many
Normans. The king yielded, and accorded to Godwine the kiss of peace, and a
revolution was accomplished of which England may well be proud.
But a tragedy soon followed, in the death of the most renowned
Englishman of that generation. During a meal at the Easter festival Godwine
fell from his seat, and died after lying insensible for three days. Great
was the grief of the nation. Harold, in the years that followed, became so
increasingly popular that he was virtually chief ruler of England, even
before the death of Eadward, which happened on January 5, 1066. His burial
was followed by the coronation of Harold. But the moment of struggle was
now come. The English throne had become vacant, and the Norman duke knew
how to represent himself as its lawful heir, and to brand the king of the
nation's choice as an usurper. The days of debate were past, and the sword
alone could decide between England and her enemy.
William found one Englishman willing to help him in all his schemes, in
the person of Tostig, Harold's brother, who had been outlawed at the demand
of the nation, owing to his unfitness to rule his province as Earl of
Northumberland. He had sunk from bad to worse. Harold had done all he could
for his fallen brother, but to restore him was impossible. Tostig was at
the Norman court, urging William to the invasion of England. At his own
risk, he was allowed to make an incursion on the English coast. Entering
the Humber, he burned several towns and slew many men. But after these
ravages Tostig repaired to ask help of Harold Hardrada, whom he induced to
prepare a great expedition.
Harold Hardrada and Tostig landed and marched towards York. A battle was
fought between the Mercians and Norwegians at Fulford, in which the former
were worsted, but Harold was marching northward. In the fearful battle of
Stamford Bridge both Harold Hardrada and Tostig were slain, and the Viking
host was shattered. The victorious English king was banqueting in
celebration of the great victory, when a messenger appeared who had come at
fleetest pace from the distant coast of Sussex.
One blow had been warded off, but another still more terrible had
fallen. Three days after the fight at Stamford Bridge, William, Duke of the
Normans, once the peaceful guest of Edward, had again, but in quite another
guise, made good his landing on the shores of England. It was in August
1066 that the Norman fleet had set sail on its great enterprise. For
several weeks a south wind had been waited for at the mouth of the River
Dive, prayers and sacred rites of every kind being employed to move Heaven
to send the propitious breeze. On September 28 the landing was effected at
Pevensey, the ancient Anderida. There were neither, ships nor men to resist
the landing. The first armed man who set foot on English ground was Duke
William himself, whose foot slipped, so that he fell with both hands on the
ground.
A loud cry of grief was raised at the evil omen. But the ready wit of
William failed him not. "By the splendour of God," he cried, "I have taken
seizin of my kingdom; the earth of England is in my hands." The whole army
landed in order, but only one day was spent at Pevensey. On the next day
the army marched on eastward and came to Hastings, which was fixed on as
the centre of the operations of the whole campaign.
It was a hard lot for the English king to be compelled to hasten
southward to dislodge the new enemy, after scarcely a moment's rest from
the toils and glories of Stamford Bridge. But the heart of Harold failed
him not, and the heart of England beat in unison with the heart of her
king. As soon as the news came, King Harold held a council of the leaders
of Stamford Bridge, or perhaps an armed gemot. He told them of the landing
of the enemy; he set before them the horrors which would come upon the land
if the invader succeeded in his enterprise. A loud shout of assent rose
from the whole assembly. Every man pledged his faith rather to die in arms
than to acknowledge any king but Harold.
The king thanked his loyal followers, and at once ordered an immediate
march to the south, an immediate muster of the forces of his kingdom.
London was the trysting-place. He himself pressed on at once with his
immediate following. And throughout the land awoke a spirit in every
English heart which has never died out to this day. The men from various
shires flocked eagerly to the standard of their glorious king. Harold seems
to have reached London on October 5, about ten days after the fight at
Stamford Bridge, and a week after the Norman landing at Pevensey. Though
his royal home was now at Westminster, he went, in order to seek divine
help and succour, to pray at Waltham, the home of his earlier days,
devoting one day to a pilgrimage to the Holy Cross which gave England her
war-cry.
Harold and William were now both eager for the battle. The king set out
from London on October 12. His consummate generalship is nowhere more
plainly shown than in this memorable campaign. He formed his own plan, and
he carried it out. He determined to give battle, but only on his own
ground, and after his own fashion. The nature of the post shows that his
real plan was to occupy a position where the Normans would have to attack
him at a great disadvantage.
William constrained Harold to fight, but Harold, in his turn,
constrained William to fight on ground of Harold's own choosing. The latter
halted at a point distant about seven miles from the headquarters of the
invaders, and pitched his camp upon the ever-memorable heights of Senlac.
It was his policy not to attack. He occupied and fortified a post of great
natural strength, which he speedily made into what is distinctly spoken of
as a castle.
The hill of Senlac, now occupied by the abbey and town of Battle,
commemorates in its later name the great event of which it was the
scene.
The morning of the decisive day, Saturday, October 14, at last had come.
The duke of the Normans heard mass, and received the communion in both
kinds, and drew forth his troops for their march against the English post.
Then in full armour, and seated on his noble Spanish war-horse, William led
his host forth in three divisions. The Normans from the hill of Telham
first caught sight of the English encamped on the opposite height of
Senlac.
First in each of the three Norman divisions marched the archers,
slingers, and cross-bow men, then the more heavily-armed infantry, lastly
the horsemen. The reason of this arrangement is clear. The light-armed were
to do what they could with their missiles to annoy the English; the heavy
infantry were to strive to break down the palisades of the English camp,
and so to make ready the way for the charge of the horse.
Like the Normans, the English had risen early. The king, after exhorting
his troops to stand firm, rode to the royal post; he there dismounted, took
his place on foot, and prayed to God for help. The battle began at nine in
the morning--one of the sacred hours of the church. The trumpet sounded,
and a flight of arrows from all three Norman divisions--right, centre, and
left,--was the prelude to the onslaught of the heavy-armed foot. The real
struggle now began. The French infantry had to toil up the hill, and to
break down the palisade, while a shower of stones and javelins disordered
their approach, and while club, sword and axe greeted all who came within
the reach of hand-strokes.
Both sides fought with unyielding valour. The war-cries rose on either
side. The Normans shouted "God help us!" the English called on the "Holy
Cross." The Norman infantry had soon done its best, but that best had been
in vain. The choicest chivalry of Europe now pressed on to the attack. The
knights of Normandy and of all lands from which men had flocked to
William's standard, now pressed on, striving to make what impression they
could with the whole strength of themselves and their horses on the
impenetrable fortress of timber, shields, and living warriors.
But all was in vain. The English had thus far stood their ground well
and wisely, and the tactics of Harold had so far completely answered. Not
only had every attack failed, but the great mass of the French army
altogether lost heart. The Bretons and the other auxiliaries on the left
were the first to give way. Horse and foot alike, they turned and fled. The
whole of William's left wing was thrown into utter confusion.
The strong heart of William, however, failed him not, and by his single
prowess and presence of mind he recalled the fleeing troops. Order was soon
restored, and the Norman host pressed on to a second and more terrible
attack. The duke himself, his relics round his neck, sought out Harold. A
few moments more, and the two might have come face to face, but Gyrth, the
noble brother of the English king, hurled a spear at William. The missile
narrowly missed the duke, but slew the Spanish steed, the first of three
that died under him that day. But William could not fight on foot as well
as on horseback. He rose to his feet, pressed straight to seek the man who
had so nearly slain him, and the earl fell, crushed beneath the blow of
William's mace. Nor did he fall alone, for his brother, Earl Leofwine, was
smitten to the earth by an unknown assailant.
The second attack, however, failed, for the English lines were as
unyielding as ever. Direct attack was unavailing. In the Norman character
fox and lion were equally blended, as William now showed. He ventured on
the daring stratagem of ordering a pretended flight, and the unwary English
rushed down the slope, pursuing the fugitive with shouts of delight. The
error was fatal to England. The tide was turned; the duke's object was now
gained; and the main end of Harold's skilful tactics was frustrated. The
English were no longer entrenched, and the battle fell into a series of
single combats. As twilight was coming on an arrow, falling like a bolt
from heaven, pierced Harold's right eye, and he sank in agony at the foot
of the standard. Round that standard the fight still raged, till the
highest nobility, the most valiant soldiery of England were slaughtered to
a man.
Had Harold lived, had another like him been ready to take his place, we
may well doubt whether, even after Senlac, England would have been
conquered at all. As it was, from this moment her complete conquest was
only a matter of time. From that day forward the Normans began to work the
will of God upon the folk of England, till there were left in England no
chiefs of the land of English blood, till all were brought down to bondage
and sorrow, till it was a shame to be called an Englishman, and the men of
England were no more a people.

JAMES ANTHONY FROUDE

History of England

James Anthony Froude was born at Darlington, England, April
23, 1818, and died on Oct. 20, 1894. He was educated at Westminster, and
Oriel College, Oxford. Taking Holy Orders, he was, for a time, deeply
influenced by Newman and the Tractarian movement, but soon underwent the
radical revolution of thought revealed by his first treatise, the "Nemesis
of Faith," which appeared in 1849, and created a sensation. Its tendency to
skepticism cost him his fellowship, but its profound pathos, its accent of
tenderness, and its fervour excited wide admiration. Permanent fame was
secured by the appearance, in 1856, of the first two instalments of his
magnificent work, "The History of England, from the Fall of Wolsey to the
Defeat of the Armada," the last volume appearing in 1870. This treatise on
the middle Tudor period is one of the most fascinating historical treatises
in the whole range of literature. It is written in a vivid and graphic
prose, and with rare command of the art of picturesque description. Froude
never accepted the doctrine that history should be treated as a science;
rather he claimed that the historian should concern himself with the
dramatic aspect of the period about which he writes. The student may
disagree with many of Froude's points of view and portraitures, yet his men
and women breathe with the life he endows them, and their motives are
actuated by the forces he sets in motion. Of his voluminous works perhaps
the most notable, with the exception of the "History," are his "History of
Ireland in the Eighteenth Century," 1871-74, and his "Short Studies on
Great Subjects," the latter aptly exhibiting Froude's gifts of masterful
prose and glittering paradox.

I.--The Condition of England

In periods like the present, when knowledge is every day extending, and
the habits and thoughts of mankind are perpetually changing under the
influence of new discoveries, it is no easy matter to throw ourselves back
into a time in which for centuries the European world grew upon a single
type, in which the forms of the father's thoughts were the forms of the
son's, and the late descendant was occupied in treading into paths the
footprints of his ancestors.
So absolutely has change become the law of our present condition, that
to cease to change is to lose place in the great race. Looking back over
history, we see times of change and progress alternating with other times
when life and thought have settled into permanent forms. Such was the
condition of the Greeks through many ages before the Persian wars, and
such, again, became the condition of Europe when the Northern nations
grafted religion and the laws of the Western empire on their own hardy
natures.
A condition of things differing alike both inwardly and outwardly from
that into which a happier fortune has introduced ourselves, is necessarily
obscure to us. In the alteration of our own characters we have lost the key
which would interpret the characters of our fathers. But some broad
conclusions as to what they were are, however, at least possible to us. A
rough census taken at the time of the Armada shows that it was something
under five millions.
The feudal system, though practically modified, was still the organising
principle of the nation, and the owner of land was bound to military
service at home whenever occasion required. All land was held upon a
strictly military principle. The state of the working classes can best be
determined by a comparison of their wages with the price of food. Both were
as far as possible regulated by Act of Parliament. Wheat in the fourteenth
century averaged 10d. the bushel; beef and pork were 1/2d. a pound; mutton
was 3/4d. The best pig or goose could be bought for 4d.; a good capon for
3d.; a chicken for 1d.; a hen for 2d. Strong-beer, which now costs 1s. 6d.
a gallon, was then a 1d. a gallon, and table beer was less than 1/2d.
A penny at the time of which we write must have been nearly equal in the
reign of Henry VIII. to the present shilling. For a penny the labourer
could buy as much bread, beef, beer, and wine as the labourer of to-day can
for a shilling. Turning then to the question of wages, by the 3d of the 6th
of Henry VIII., it was enacted that the master, carpenters, masons,
bricklayers, tilers, plumbers, glaziers, joiners, and others, employers of
skilled workmen should give to each of their journeymen, if no meat and
drink was allowed, sixpence a day for the half year, fivepence a day for
the other half; or fivepence-half penny for the yearly average. The common
labourers were to receive fourpence a day for the half year; for the
remaining half, threepence.
The day labourer received what was equivalent to something near twenty
shillings a week, the wages at present paid in English colonies; and this
is far from being a full account of his advantages. The agricultural
labourer held land in connection with his house, while in most parishes
there were large ranges of common and unenclosed forest land, which
furnished fuel to him gratis, where pigs might range, and ducks and geese,
and where, if he could afford a cow, he was in no danger of being unable to
feed it; and so important was this privilege considered, that when the
commons began to be largely enclosed, Parliament insisted that the working
man should not be without some piece of ground on which he could employ his
own and his family's industry.
By the 7th of the 31st of Elizabeth it was ordered that no cottage
should be built for residence without four acres of land at lowest being
attached to it for the sole use of the occupants of such cottage.
The incomes of the great nobles cannot be determined for they varied
probably as much as they do now. Under Henry IV. the average income of an
earl was estimated at £2,000 a year. Under Henry VIII. the great Duke
of Buckingham, the wealthiest English peer, had £6,000. And the
income of the Archbishop of Canterbury was rated at the same amount. But
the establishments of such men were enormous. Their retinues in time of
peace consisted of several hundred persons, and in time of war a large
share of the expenses was paid often out of private purses.
Passing down to the body of the people, we find that £20 a year
and heavy duties to do for it, represented the condition of the squire of
the parish. By the 2nd of Henry V. "the wages" of a parish priest were
limited to £5 6s. 8d., except in cases where there was a special
license from the bishop, when they might be raised as high as £6.
Both squire and priest had sufficient for comfort. Neither was able to
establish any steep difference between himself and the commons among whom
he lived, so far as concerned outward advantages.
The habits of all classes were free, open, and liberal. In frank style
the people lived in "merry England," displaying the "glory of hospitality,"
England's pre-eminent boast, by the rules according to which all tables
were open to all comers without reserve. To every man, according to his
degree, who chose to ask for it, there was free fare and free lodging. The
people hated three things with all their hearts--idleness, want, and
cowardice.
A change, however, was coming upon the world, the meaning and direction
of which even still is hidden from us, a change from era to era. Chivalry
was dying; the abbey and castle were soon together to crumble into ruins;
and all the forms, desires, beliefs, and convictions of the old world were
passing away never to return. A new continent had arisen beyond the western
sea. The floor of heaven, inlaid with stars, had sunk back into an infinite
abyss of immeasurable space; and the firm earth itself, unfixed from its
foundations, was seen to be but a small atom in the awful vastness of the
universe. In the fabric of habit which they had so laboriously built for
themselves mankind were to remain no longer.

II.--The Fall of Wolsey's Policy

Times were changed in England since the second Henry walked barefoot
through the streets of Canterbury, and knelt while the monks flogged him on
the pavement in the Chapter House, doing penance for Becket's murder. The
clergy had won the battle in the twelfth century because they deserved it.
They were not free from fault and weakness, but they felt the meaning of
their profession. Their hearts were in their vows, their authority was
exercised more justly, more nobly, than the authority of the crown; and
therefore, with inevitable justice, the crown was compelled to stoop before
them.
The victory was great, but, like many victories, it was fatal to the
conquerors. It filled them with the vanity of power; they forgot their
duties in their privileges, and when, a century later, the conflict
recommenced, the altering issue proved the altering nature of the
conditions under which it was fought. The nation was ready for sweeping
remedies. The people felt little loyalty to the pope. The clergy pursued
their course to its end. They sank steadily into that condition which is
inevitable from the constitution of human nature, among men without faith,
wealthy, powerful, and luxuriously fed, yet condemned to celibacy and cut
off from the common duties and common pleasures of ordinary life.
Many priests spent their time in hawking or hunting, in lounging at
taverns, in the dissolute enjoyment of the world. If, however, there were
no longer saints among the clergy, there could still arise among them a
remarkable man. In Cardinal Wolsey the king found an adviser who was
essentially a transition minister, holding a middle place between an
English statesman and a Catholic of the old order. Under Wolsey's
influence, Henry made war with Louis of France in the pope's quarrel,
entered the polemic lists with Luther, and persecuted the English
Protestants.
Yet Wolsey could not blind himself to the true condition of the church,
before which lay the alternative of ruin or amendment. Therefore he
familiarised Henry with sense that a reformation was inevitable. Dreaming
that it could be effected from within, by the church itself inspired with a
wiser spirit, he himself fell the first victim of a convulsion which he had
assisted to create, and which he attempted too late to stay.
Wolsey talked of reformation, but delayed its coming. The monasteries
grew worse and worse. Favoured parish clergy held as many as eight
benefices. Bishops accumulated sees, and, unable to attend to all, attended
to none. Wolsey himself, the church reformer (so little did he really know
what a reformation means), was at once Archbishop of York, Bishop of
Winchester and of Durham, and Abbot of St. Albans. Under such
circumstances, we need not be surprised to find the clergy sunk low in the
respect of the English people.
Fish's famous pamphlet shows the spirit that was seething. He spoke of
what he had seen and knew. The monks, he tells the king, "be they that have
made a hundred thousand idle dissolute women in your realm." But Wolsey
could interfere with neither bishops nor monks without a special
dispensation from the pope. A new trouble arose from the nation in the
desire of Henry to divorce Catherine of Aragon, who had been his deceased
brother's wife, was six years older than himself, and was an obstacle to
the establishment of the kingdom. Her sons were dead, and she was beyond
the period when more children could be expected. Though descent in the
female line was not formally denied, no queen regent had ever, in fact, sat
upon the throne; nor was the claim distinctly admitted, or the claim of the
House of York would have been unquestionable. It was, therefore, with no
little anxiety that the council of Henry VIII. perceived his male children,
on whom their hopes were centred, either born dead, or dying one after
another within a few days of their birth.
The line of the Princess Mary was precarious, for her health was weak
from her childhood. If she lived, her accession would be a temptation to
insurrection; if she did not live, and the king had no other children, a
civil war was inevitable. The next heir in blood was James of Scotland, and
gravely as statesmen desired the union of the two countries, in the
existing mood of the people, the very stones in London streets, it was
said, would rise up against a king of Scotland who entered England as
sovereign.
So far were Henry and Catherine alike that both had imperious tempers,
and both were indomitably obstinate; but Henry was hot and impetuous,
Catherine cold and self-contained. She had been the wife of Prince Arthur,
eldest son of Henry VII., but the death of that prince occurred only five
months after the marriage. The uncertainty of the laws of marriage, and the
innumerable refinements of the Roman canon law, affected the legitimacy of
the children and raised scruples of conscience in the mind of the king. The
loss of his children must have appeared as a judicial sentence on a
violation of the Divine law. The divorce presented itself to him as a moral
obligation, when national advantage combined with superstition to encourage
what he secretly desired.
Wolsey, after thirty years' experience of public life, was as sanguine
as a boy. Armed with this little lever of divorce, he saw himself in
imagination the rebuilder of the Catholic faith and the deliverer of Europe
from ecclesiastical revolt and from innovations of faith. The mass of the
people hated Protestantism as he, a true friend of the Catholic cult,
sincerely detested the reformation of Luther. He believed that the old
life-tree of Catholicism, which in fact was but cumbering the ground, might
bloom again in its old beauty. But a truer political prophet than Wolsey
would have been found in the most ignorant of those poor men who were
risking death and torture in disseminating the pernicious volumes of the
English Testament.
Catherine being a Spanish princess, Henry, in 1527, formed a league with
Francis I., with the object of breaking the Spanish alliance. The pope was
requested to make use of his dispensing power to enable the King of England
to marry a wife who could bear him children. Deeply as we deplore the
outrage inflicted on Catherine, and the scandal and suffering occasioned by
the dispute, it was in the highest degree fortunate that at the crisis of
public dissatisfaction in England with the condition of the church, a cause
should have arisen which tested the whole question of church authority in
its highest form. It was no accident which connected a suit for divorce
with the reformation of religion.

Anne Boleyn

The Spanish emperor, Charles V., gave Catherine his unwavering support,
and refused to allow the pope to pass a judicial sentence of divorce.
Catherine refused to yield. Another person now comes into conspicuous view.
It has been with Anne Boleyn as with Catherine of Aragon--both are regarded
as the victims of a tyranny which Catholics and Protestants unite to
remember with horror, and each has taken the place of a martyred saint in
the hagiology of the respective creeds. Anne Boleyn was second daughter of
Sir Thomas Boleyn, a gentleman of noble family. She was educated in Paris,
and in 1525 came back to England to be maid of honour to Queen Catherine,
and to be distinguished at the court by her talents, accomplishments, and
beauty.
The fortunes of Anne Boleyn were unhappily linked with those of men to
whom the greatest work ever yet accomplished in this country was committed.
In the memorable year 1529, after the meeting of parliament, events moved
apace. In six weeks, for so long only the session lasted, the astonished
church authorities saw bill after bill hurried up before the lords, by
which successively the pleasant fountains of their incomes would be dried
up to flow no longer. The Great Reformation had commenced in earnest.
The carelessness of the bishops in the discharge of their most immediate
duties obliged the legislature to trespass in the provinces most purely
spiritual, and to undertake the discipline of the clergy. Bill after bill
struck hard and home on the privileges of the recreant clergy. The aged
Bishop of Rochester complained to the lords that in the lower house the cry
was nothing but "Down with the church." Yet, so frightful were the abuses
that called for radical reform, that even persons who most disapprove of
the reformation will not at the present time wonder at their enactment, or
disapprove of their severity. The king treated the bishops, when they
remonstrated, with the most contemptuous disrespect. Archbishop Cranmer now
adopted a singular expedient. He advised Henry to invite expressions from
all the chief learned authorities throughout Europe as to the right of the
pope to grant him a dispensation of dissolution of his marriage. The
English universities, to escape imputations of treasons and to avoid
exciting Henry's wrath, gave replies such as would please him, that of
Oxford being, however, the more decided of the two. Most of the continental
authorities declined to pronounce any dictum as to the powers of the
pope.The Fall of the Great Chancellor
The fall of Wolsey was at hand. His enemies accused him of treason to
the constitution by violating a law of the realm. He had acted as papal
legate within the realm. The parliaments of Edward I., Edward III., Richard
II., and Henry IV. had by a series of statutes pronounced illegal all
presentations by the pope to any office or dignity in the Anglican Church,
under a penalty of premunire. Henry did not feel himself called on to
shield his great minister, although the guilt extended to all who had
recognised Wolsey in the capacity of papal legate. Indeed, it extended to
the archbishops, bishops, the privy council, the two houses of parliament,
and indirectly to the nation itself. The higher clergy had been encouraged
by Wolsey's position to commit those acts of despotism which had created so
deep animosity among the people. The overflow of England's last
ecclesiastical minister was to teach them that the privileges they had
abused were at an end.
In February, 1531, Henry assumed the title which was to occasion such
momentous consequences, of "Protector and only Supreme Head of the Church
and Clergy of England." The clergy were compelled to assent. Further
serious steps marked the great breach with Rome. The annates, or first
fruits, were abolished. Ever since the crusades a practice had existed in
all the churches of Europe that bishops and archbishops, on presentation to
their sees, should transmit to the pope one year's income. This impressive
impost was not abrogated. It was a sign of the parting of the ways.
Henry laid his conduct open to the world, declaring truly what he
desired, and seeking it by open means. He was determined to proceed with
the divorce, and also to continue the reformation of the English church.
And he was in no small measure aided in the former resolve by the
recommendation of Francis, for the French king advised him to act on the
general opinion of Europe that his marriage with Catherine, as widow of his
elder brother Arthur, was null, and at once made Anne Boleyn his wife. This
counsel was administered at an interview between the two kings at Boulogne,
in October, 1532.
The pope had trifled for six years with the momentous question, and
Henry was growing old. At the outset of the discussion the pope had said:
"Marry freely; fear nothing, and all shall be arranged as you desire." But
the pontiff, reduced to a dilemma by various causes, had fallen back on his
Italian cunning, and had changed his attitude, listening to the appeals of
Catherine and her powerful friends. And now he threatened Henry with
excommunication.
Henry entered privately into matrimonial relations with Anne in
November, 1532, and the marriage was solemnly celebrated, with a gorgeous
pageant, at Westminster Abbey in the following January. On July 24 the
people gathering to church in every parish read, nailed to the church
doors, a paper signed Henry R., setting forth that Lady Catherine of Spain,
heretofore called Queen of England, was not to be called by that title any
more, but was to be called princess dowager, and so to be held and
esteemed. The triumph of Anne was to last but three short years.

Protestantism

Wycliffe's labour had left only the Bible as the seed of a future life,
and no trace remained in the sixteenth century of the Lollardry of the
fourteenth. But now Protestantism recommenced its enterprise in the growing
desire for a nobler, holier insight into the will of God. In the year 1525
was enrolled in London a society calling itself "The Association of
Christian Brothers." Its paid agents went up and down the land carrying
tracts and Testaments with them, and enrolling in the order all who dared
risk their lives in such a cause.
The Protestants thus isolated were waiting for direction, and men in
such a temper are seldom left to wait in vain. Luther had kindled the
spark, which was to become a conflagration in Germany, at Wittemberg, on
October 31, 1517, by his denunciation of indulgences. His words found an
echo, and flew from lip to lip all through Western Europe. Tyndal, an
Oxford student, went to Germany, saw Luther, and under his direction
translated into English the Gospels and Epistles. This led to the formation
of the "association" in London. The authorities were alarmed. The bishops
subscribed to buy up the translations of the Bible, and these were burned
before a vast concourse in St. Paul's Churchyard. But Wolsey had for two
years been suppressing the smaller monasteries. Simultaneously, Protestants
were persecuted wherever they could be detected and seized. "Little"
Bilney, or "Saint" Bilney, a distinguished Cambridge student, was burnt as
a heretic at the stake, as were James Bainham, a barrister of the Middle
Temple, and several other members of the "association." These were the
first paladins of the reformation, and the struggle went bravely forward.
They were the knights who slew the dragons and made the earth habitable for
common flesh and blood.
As yet but two men of the highest order of power were on the side of
Protestantism--Latimer and Cromwell. These were now to come forward,
pressed by circumstances which could no longer dispense with them. When the
breach with the pope was made irreparable, and the papal party at home had
assumed an attitude of suspended insurrection, the fortunes of the
Protestants entered into a new phase. The persecution ceased, and those who
were but lately its likely victims, hiding for their lives, passed at once
by a sudden alternation into the sunshine of political favour.
Cromwell and Latimer together caught the moment as it went by, and
before it was over a work had been done in England which, when it was
accomplished once, was accomplished for ever. The conservative party
recovered their power, and abused it as before; but the chains of the
nation were broken, and no craft of kings or priests or statesmen could
weld the magic links again, Latimer became famous as a preacher at
Cambridge, and was heard of by Henry, who sent for him and appointed him
one of the royal chaplains. He was accused by the bishops of heresy, but
was on trial absolved and sent back to his parish. Soon after the tide
turned, and the reformation entered into a new phase.
Thomas Cromwell, like Latimer of humble origin, was the "malleus
monachorum." Wolsey discovered his merit, and employed him in breaking up
the small monasteries, which the pope had granted for the foundation of the
new colleges. Cromwell remained with the great cardinal till his fall. It
was then that the truly noble nature which was in him showed itself. The
lords had passed a bill of impeachment against Wolsey--violent, vindictive,
and malevolent. It was to be submitted to the commons. Cromwell prepared an
opposition, and conducted the defence from his place in parliament so
skilfully that he threw out the bill, saved Wolsey, and gained such a
reputation that he became Henry's secretary, representing the government in
the House of Commons, and was on the highroad to power.
The reformation was blotted with a black and frightful stain. Towards
the end of April, 1536, certain members of the Privy Council were engaged
in secretly collecting evidence which implicated the queen in adultery. In
connection with the terrible charge, as her accomplices five gentlemen were
arrested--Sir William Brereton, Mark Smeton, a court musician, Sir Henry
Norris, Sir Francis Weston, and, the accusation in his case being the most
shocking, Lord Rochford, the queen's brother. The trial was hastily pushed
forward, and all were executed. The queen, who vehemently and piteously
appealed to Henry, passionately protesting that she was absolutely
innocent, was also condemned, and was beheaded in public on Tower Hill.
Henry immediately after the tragedy married Jane, daughter of Sir John
Seymour. The indecent haste is usually considered conclusive of the cause
of Anne Boleyn's ruin. On December 12, 1537, a prince, so long and
passionately hoped for, was born; but a sad calamity followed, for the
queen took cold, and died on October 24.
In 1539 monastic life came to an end in England. The great monasteries
were dissolved; the abbey lands were distributed partly amongst the old
nobility and partly amongst the chapters of six new bishoprics. On January
6, 1540, was solemnised the marriage of Henry with Anne, daughter of the
Duke of Cleves, and sister-in-law of the Elector of Saxony. This event was
brought about by the negotiations of Cromwell. The king was deeply
displeased with the ungainly appearance of his bride when he met her on her
landing, but retreat was impossible. Though Henry was personally kind to
the new queen, the marriage made him wretched.
Cromwell's enemies speedily hatched a conspiracy against the great
statesman. He was arrested on a charge of high treason, was accused of
corruption and heresy, of gaining wealth by bribery and extortion, and, in
spite of Cranmer's efforts to save him, passed to the scaffold on July 28,
1540. For eight years Cromwell, who had been ennobled as Earl of Essex, was
supreme with king, parliament, and convocation, and the nation, in the
ferment of revolution, was absolutely controlled by him.
Convocation had already dissolved the marriage of Henry and Anne,
setting both free to contract and consummate other marriages without
objection or delay. The queen had placidly given her consent. Handsome
settlements were made on her in the shape of estates for her maintenance
producing nearly three thousand a year. In August of the same year the King
married, without delay of circumstance, Catherine, daughter of Lord Edmond
Howard. Brief, indeed, was her reign. In November, 1541, she was charged
with unfaithfulness to her marriage vows. The king was overwhelmed. Some
dreadful spirit pursued his married life, tainting it with infamy.
Two gentlemen confessed their guilty connection with the queen. They
were hanged at Tyburn, and the queen and Lady Rochford, who had been her
confidential companion, suffered within the Tower. Once more the king
ventured into marriage. Catherine, widow of Lord Latimer, his last choice,
was selected, not in the interest of politics or religion, but by his own
personal judgment; and this time he found the peace which he desired.
The great event of 1542 was the signal victory of the English over a
Scottish army of ten thousand men at Solway Moss. King James of Scotland
had undertaken, at the instigation of the pope and of the King of France to
attack the English as heretics. The Scottish clergy were ready to proclaim
a pilgrimage of grace. But the English borderers, though only shepherds and
agriculturists, as soon as they mounted their horses, were instantly the
finest light cavalry in Europe. They so disastrously defeated the Scots
that all the latter either perished in the morass by the Solway, or were
captured.
Henry died on January 28, 1547. He was attended in his last moments by
Cranmer, having sent specially for the archbishop.
The king did not leave the world without expressing his views on the
future with elaborate explicitness. He spent the day before his death in
conversation with Lord Hertford and Sir William Paget on the condition of
the country. By separate and earnest messages he commended Prince Edward to
the care both of Charles V. and of Francis I. The earl, on the morning of
Henry's death, hastened off to bring up the prince, who was in
Hertfordshire with the Princess Elizabeth, and in the afternoon of Monday,
the 31st, he arrived at the Tower with Edward. The Council was already in
session, and Hertford was appointed protector during the minority of
Edward. Thus, the reforming Protestant party was in full power. Cranmer set
the willing example, and the other prelates consented, or were compelled to
imitate him, in an acknowledgment that all jurisdiction, ecclesiastical as
well as secular, within the realm, only emanated from the sovereign. On
February it was ordered in council that Hertford should be Duke of
Somerset, and that his brother, Sir Thomas Seymour, should be Lord Seymour
of Sudleye; Lord Parr was to be Marquis of Northampton; Lord Wriothesley,
the chancellor, Earl of Southampton; and Viscount Lisle was to be Earl of
Warwick. The Duke of Somerset was the young king's uncle, and the real
power was at once in his hands. But if he was ambitious, it was only--as he
persuaded himself--to do good.

Edward's Guardian

Under his rule the spirit of iconoclasm spread fast, and the reformation
proceeded to completion. Churches were cleared of images, and crucifixes
were melted into coin. Somerset gave the popular movement the formal
sanction of the Government. Injunctions were issued for the general
purification of the churches. The Book of Homilies was issued as a guide to
doctrine, care was taken that copies of the Bible were accessible in the
parish churches, and translations of Erasmus's "Paraphrase of the New
Testament" were provided as a commentary.
Somerset was a brave general as well as a great statesman. He invaded
Scotland during the first year of his protectorate, on account of the
refusal of the Scottish government to ratify the contract entered into with
Henry VIII., by which it was agreed that Mary Queen of Scots should marry
Edward. At the memorable battle of Pinkie, on September 10, 1547, the Scots
were completely beaten. But Somerset was hastily summoned southward. His
brother, Lord Seymour, had been caballing against him, and was arrested,
tried, and beheaded on Tower Hill, on March 20, 1549. But the fall of the
protector himself was not long delayed, for under his administration of
three years his policy gradually excited wide discontent. In various parts
of the country insurrections had to be suppressed. The French king had
taken away the young Scottish queen, the king's majesty's espouse, by which
marriage the realms of England and Scotland should have been united in
perpetual peace. Money had been wasted on the royal household. The alliance
with Charles V. had been trifled away. The princely name and princely
splendour which Somerset affected, the vast fortune which he amassed amidst
the ruin of the national finances, and the palace--now known as Somerset
House, London--which was rising before the eyes of the world amidst the
national defeats and misfortunes, combined to embitter the irritation with
which the council regarded him.
His great rival, John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, by constant insinuations
both in and out of parliament, excited the national feeling against him to
such a degree that at length the young king was constrained to sign his
deposition. He seems to have entertained no strong attachment to his uncle.
On December I, 1551, he was tried before the lords for high treason and
condemned. He was beheaded on Tower Hill on January 22, 1582. The English
public, often wildly wrong on general questions, are good judges, for the
most part, of personal character; and so passionately was Somerset loved,
that those who were nearest the scaffold started forward to dip their
handkerchiefs in his blood. Before this event, Dudley, by whose cruel
treachery the tragedy had been brought about, had been created Duke of
Northumberland. The great aim of this nobleman was to secure the succession
to the throne for his own family. With this purpose in view he married his
son, Lord Guildford Dudley, to Lady Jane Grey, daughter of the Duchess of
Suffolk, to whom, by the will of Henry VIII., the crown would pass, in
default of issue by Edward, Mary, or Elizabeth.
In April, 1553, Edward, who had been removed to Greenwich in consequence
of illness, grew rapidly worse. By the end of the month he was spitting
blood, and the country was felt to be on the eve of a new reign. The
accession of Mary, who was personally popular, was looked forward to by the
people as a matter of course. Northumberland now worked on the mind of the
feeble and dying king, and succeeded in persuading him to declare both his
sisters incapable of succeeding to the crown, as being illegitimate. The
king died on July 6. The last male child of the Tudor race had ceased to
suffer.
When Lady Jane was saluted by Northumberland and four other lords, all
kneeling at her feet, as queen, she shook, covered her face with her hands,
and fell fainting to the ground. The next Monday, July 10, the royal barges
came down the Thames from Richmond, and at three in the afternoon Lady Jane
landed at the broad staircase of the Tower, as queen, in undesired
splendour. But that same evening messages came saying that Mary had
declared herself queen. She had sent addresses to the peers, commanding
them on their allegiance to come to her.
Happily, the conspiracy in favour of Lady Jane was crushed, without
bloodshed, although it had seemed for a time as if the nation, was on the
brink of a civil war. But, though Mary wished to spare Lady Jane and her
husband, her intentions were frustrated by the determination of Renard,
ambassador of the emperor. Northumberland was sent to the Tower, and
beheaded on August 22, and in the following November Lady Jane and her
husband were also condemned. Mary long hesitated, but at length issued the
fatal warrant on February 8, 1554, and four days later both were executed.
Lady Jane was but a delicate girl of seventeen, but met her fate with the
utmost heroism.
Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, became the chief instrument of
the restoration of the Catholic faith under Mary. His fierce spirit soon
began to display itself. In the fiery obstinacy of his determination this
prelate speedily became the incarnate expression of the fury of the
ecclesiastical faction, smarting, as they were, under their long
degradation, and under the irritating consciousness of those false oaths of
submission which they had sworn to a power they loathed. Gardiner now saw
his Romanising party once more in a position to revenge their wrongs when
there was no longer any Henry to stand between them and their enemies. He
would take the tide at the flood, forge a weapon keener than the last, and
establish the Inquisition.

The Reign of Terror

Mary listened to the worse counsels of each, and her distempered humour
settled into a confused ferocity. Both Gardiner and she resolved to secure
the trial, condemnation, and execution of her sister Elizabeth, but their
plans utterly miscarried, for no evidence against her could be gathered.
The princess was known to be favourable to the Protestant cause, but the
attempts to prove her disloyalty to Mary were vain. She was imprisoned in
the Tower, and the fatal net appeared to be closing on her. But though the
danger of her murder was very great, the lords who had reluctantly
permitted her to be imprisoned would not allow her to be openly sacrificed,
or indeed, permit the queen to continue in the career of vengeance on which
she had entered. The necessity of releasing Elizabeth from the Tower was an
unspeakable annoyance to Mary. A confinement at Woodstock was the furthest
stretch of severity that the country would, for the present, permit. On May
19, 1554, Elizabeth was taken up the river.
The princess believed herself that she was being carried off tanquam
ovis, as she said--as a sheep for the slaughter. But the world thought
she was set at liberty, and, as her barge passed under the bridge, Mary
heard with indignation, from the palace windows, three salvoes of artillery
fired from the Steelyard, as a sign of the joy of the people. Vexations
began to tell on Mary's spirit. She could not shake off her anxieties, or
escape from the shadow of her subject's hatred. Insolent pamphlets were
dropped in her path and in the offices of Whitehall. They were placed by
mysterious hands in the sanctuary of her bedroom.
Her trials began to tell on her understanding. She was ill with
hysterical longings; ill with the passions which Gardiner, as her
chancellor, had provoked, but Paget as leader of the opposing party, had
disappointed. But she was now to become the wife of King Philip of Spain.
Negotiations for this momentous marriage had been protracted, and even
after the contract had been signed, Philip seemed slow to arrive. The
coolness manifested by his tardiness did much to aggravate the queen's
despondency. On July 20, 1554, he landed at Southampton. The atmospheric
auspices were not cheering, for Philip, who had come from the sunny plains
of Castile, from his window at Southampton looked out on a steady downfall
of July rain. Through the cruel torrent he made his way to church to mass,
and afterwards Gardiner came to him from the queen. On the next Sunday he
journeyed to Winchester, again in pouring rain. To the cathedral he went
first, wet as he was. Whatever Philip of Spain was entering on, whether it
was a marriage or a massacre, a state intrigue or a midnight murder, his
first step was ever to seek a blessing from the holy wafer. Mary was at the
bishop's palace, a few hundred yards' distance. Mary could not wait, and
the same night the interview took place. Let the curtain fall over the
meeting, let it close also over the wedding solemnities which followed with
due splendour two days after. There are scenes in life which we regard with
pity too deep for words.
The unhappy queen, unloved, unlovable, yet with her parched heart
thirsting for affection, was flinging herself upon a breast to which an
iceberg was warm; upon a man to whom love was an unmeaning word, except as
the most brutal of all passions. Mary set about to complete the Catholic
reaction. She had restored the Catholic orthodoxy in her own person, and
now was resolved to bring over her own subjects. But clouds gathered over
the court. The Spaniards were too much in evidence. With the reaction came
back the supremacy of the pope, and the ecclesiastical courts were
reinstated in authority to check unlicensed extravagance of opinion.
Gardiner, Bonner, Tunstal, and three other prelates formed a court on
January 28, 1555, in St. Mary Overy's Church, Southwark, and Hooper, Bishop
of Gloucester, and Canon Rogers of St. Paul's, were brought up before them.
Both were condemned as Protestants, and both were burnt at the stake, the
bishop at Gloucester, the canon at Smithfield. They suffered heroically.
The Catholics had affected to sneer at the faith of their rivals. There was
a general conviction among them that Protestants would all flinch at the
last; that they had no "doctrine that would abide the fire." Many more
victims were offered. The enemies of the church were to submit or die. So
said Gardiner, and so said the papal legate and the queen, in the delirious
belief that they were the chosen instruments of Providence.
The people, whom the cruelty of the party was reconverting to the
reformation, while the fires of Smithfield blazed, with a rapidity like
that produced by the gift of tongues at Pentecost, regarded the martyrs
with admiration as soldiers dying for their country. On Mary, sorrow was
heaped on sorrow. Her expectation of a child was disappointed, and Philip
refused to stay in England. His unhappy wife was forced to know that he
preferred the society of the most abandoned women to hers. The horrible
crusade against heretics became the business of the rest of her life.
Archbishop Cranmer, Bishops Ridley and Latimer, and many other persons of
distinction were amongst the martyrs of the Marian persecution. Latimer was
eighty years of age.
Mary's miseries were intensified month by month. War broke out between
England and France. For ten years the French had cherished designs, and on
January 7, 1558, the famous stronghold fell into their hands. The effect of
this misfortune on the queen was to produce utter prostration. She now well
understood that both parliament and the nation were badly disposed towards
her. But her end was at hand. After much suffering from dropsy and nervous
debility, she prepared quietly for what she knew was inevitable. On
November 16, at midnight, taking leave of a world in which she had played
so evil a part, Mary received the last rites of the church. Towards morning
she was sinking, and at the elevation of the Host, as mass was being said,
her head sank, and she was gone. A few hours later the pope's legate,
Cardinal Pole, at Lambeth, followed her. Thus the reign of the pope in
England and the reign of terror closed together.